Re: [sca-j] ISSUE 107: RFC2119 Language is needed for the EJB BindingSpecification - proposal v3

Dave,

Thanks for your updates.

I've had a go at improving section 3,
but I get the feeling that more is needed in that section, relating to
SCA <service/> elements

that use the EJB binding:

Also see my comments below.

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:  

From:
David Booz <>

To:


Date:
29/07/2009 16:44

Subject:
[sca-j] ISSUE 107: RFC2119 Language
is needed for the EJB Binding Specification - proposal v3

Following Mike's review of the Issue 107 progress to date,
I have another revision (v3) for 107 ready for review.

Mike, there are a couple of your comments that I'd like to talk to you
about (still in the document).

1) Comment attached to section 3 ("Layout of section 3 is confusing...".
I restructured this section and re-worded things slightly, guessing at
your concerns, but am not really sure I understand your comment. Please
take a look at what I've done and let me know if I addressed the comment
or not.

No, your updates don't solve my issue.  There
is a whole context that is missing for this section - without that context,
I find

it impossible to work out what the section
is really saying.  I suspect you may think it so obvious that it does
not need to be

said, but coming to it cold, I felt lost.

When I talked about "two interfaces"
I meant it - let's look at what I mean.  The simpler case is an SCA
<reference/>

wired to an EJB offering some service:

<reference name="foo">

        <interface.java
class="foo.myService"/>

        <binding.ejb
uri="corbaname:rir:#ejb/fooMyServiceBeanHome"/>

<reference>

So, the interface of the reference is clear
- it is whatever is in foo.myService interface class.

The OTHER interface is the interface of the
EJB - the interface represented by fooMyServiceBeanHome in this case.

So what this whole section is talking about
is the compatibility of foo:myService interface with the fooMyServiceBeanHome
interface.

It needs to make that crystal clear, in my
opinion.

I note that there are NO compatibility rules
relating to SCA services exposed over the EJB Binding.  I find this
surprising.

What happens for an SCA service that uses
a "pure" SCA business interface, with no EJB related features?
 What can the

EJB ref interface look like?  I can't
answer this question - I hope that you can.

2) Comment attached to section 3.1 - I'd like to strike the sentence you
highlighted in your comment. Would that resolve the concern, or is there
still a concern?

Striking the sentence is OK.

However, I suspect that there is a need for
a discussion section which talks about the problems of the "poorly
suited"

interfaces and describes possible approaches
to dealing with those problems.

I removed your comments where I was nearly certain that I had addressed
it.

I know about the formatting problem is section 8 of the pdf document, I'll
correct that on the next iteration. I found it after I had already uploaded
the documents.

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/33580/sca-ejbbinding-1.1-spec-wd-04%20issue107_v3.pdf

[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/33579/sca-ejbbinding-1.1-spec-wd-04%20issue107_v3.doc

Dave Booz

STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture

Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC

"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"

Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093

e-mail:

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU

sca-ejbbinding-1.1-spec-wd-04 issue107_v3_mje.doc