[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Some review comments on sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
Responses inline in <vamsi> tags.
++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer �http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC �http://geronimo.apache.org
Mike Edwards
<mike_edwards@uk.
ibm.com> To
C Vamsi/India/IBM@IBMIN
11/02/2009 14:52 cc
Subject
Re: [sca-assembly] Some review
comments on
sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
Vamsi,
Sorry for missing the earlier set of comments.
Responses inline and updates included in new Rev4 version of spec.
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: �mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
From: C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
To: Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc: "OASIS Assembly" <sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 10/02/2009 17:35
Subject: Re: [sca-assembly] Some review comments on
sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
Mike,
I will raise new issues as per your comments. �There are more comments (the
first set actually) in an e-mail that I sent before the one you acted on.
See [1]
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200902/msg00005.html
++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer �http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC �http://geronimo.apache.org
� � � � � � Mike Edwards
� � � � � � <mike_edwards@uk.
� � � � � � ibm.com> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � To
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � "OASIS Assembly"
� � � � � � 10/02/2009 22:47 � � � � �<sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org>
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �cc
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Subject
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Re: [sca-assembly] Some review
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � comments on
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
Vamsi,
I'm sorry for missing your comments ahead of the call. �I've had a proper
look at them now and I've
acted on them as described inline...
I incorporated the changes into an updated Rev4 along with the 3 editorial
fixes from the TC call today.
If anyone has any problems with these editorial fixes, please shout now!
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: �mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
From: � � � C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
To: � � � � C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
Cc: � � � � sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: � � � 04/02/2009 20:55
Subject: � �Re: [sca-assembly] Some review comments on
� � � � � � sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
Some more comments:
Line 870: 4.3.1 instead of 5.3.1?
Updated as an editorial fix
Section 4.4 name should be Component Property?
No - the whole section is "Component" and this is a subheading
Line 1064: @name attribute
Fixed as an editorial
Line 1064-1066: Should the wording be made consistent with that of service
and reference elements?
I think that's a subject for an Issue
Line 1078: change to "Overrides the many specified for this property in the
component type of the implementation."
Fixed as an editorial
Lines 1152-1154: Multiple property elements with same property name is a
violation of "[ASM50030]"
I agree. �That's a subject for an issue.
Line 1157: stockQuoteService with a small s
Fixed as an editorial
Line 1166: stockQuoteService with a small s
Fixed as an editorial
++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer �http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC �http://geronimo.apache.org
� � � � � � C
� � � � � � Vamsi/India/IBM@I
� � � � � � BMIN � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � To
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � sca-assembly@lists.oasis-open.org
� � � � � � 05/02/2009 01:26 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � cc
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Subject
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [sca-assembly] Some review comments
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � on
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf
I have reviewed the document partially and here are some comments on
sca-assembly-1.1-spec-cd02-Rev3.pdf:
Line 212: component with small c
Fixed - editorial
Line 225: us xs:QName for consistency
Fixed - editorial
Line 245: What does implementation 0..1 mean?
Means that �<implementation/> is optional with maxOccurs=1
Line 377: "zero or more" in bold font.
Fixed - editorial
Line 431-432: Change to "The implementation can use the supplied value in
any way that it chooses."
Fixed - editorial
Section 3.1.4 does not talk about 0..1 for implementation
It has a "?" in the pseudo-schema
<vamsi>
Other subsections in the section explicitly say in the descriptive text
about the respective multiplicity. So, I was wondering if it should be done
for this subsection as well.
</vamsi>
Line 464: implementation instead of implementationervice
Fixed - editorial
Line 508: tags or annotations?
Fixed - editorial
Should example in 3.3 use @Service annotation as well?
It does not have to
Line 578: Should the componentType have implementation.java tag as it is
computed from the java class?
No
Line 596: Is it possible to get the default value for the field by
introspection?
No, it isn't - this needs fixing via an issue
Line 600: "Component Implementation" spec instead of "Client and
Implementation" spec?
Yes, Fixed - editorial - also removed reference to "SCA Example Code
document"
Line 607-608: Not true for Java EE
I don't understand this comment. �There does not appear to be a problem
with those lines.
<vamsi>
More than one component can use and configure the same implementation,
where each component configures the implementation differently. -- More
than one component can not use implementation.ejb to configure the same EJB
as component implementation
</vamsi>
Line 609: in xxx.composite is xxx needed?
"xxx" indicates that some kind of file name is required
<vamsi>Instead of xxx.composite, can we say "a file with .composite
extension"? That is what we do for componentType files etc.</vamsi>
Section 4.1 name should be Component Implementation?
I take the view that this is implied by the Section 4 heading which is
"Component"
Section 4.2 name should be Component Service?
Ditto
Section 4.3 name shoulde Component Reference?
Ditto
Lines 791-792: replace 2 occurrences of "service" with "reference".
Fixed - thanks for spotting that - the error was actually in the appendix C
section that
holds all the normative statements.
I will post more comments as I review further. �I would like to know if I
need to raise NEW ISSUE for some of these.
++Vamsi
Apache Tuscany Committer �http://tuscany.apache.org
Apache Geronimo Committer and Member of PMC �http://geronimo.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. �Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. �Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
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
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]