| 00000 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf cancelled |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-04 09:45 |
| 00001 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf cancelled |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-04 09:45 |
| 00002 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf uncancelled |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-04 09:50 |
| 00003 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf (Conference Call) added |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-04 10:03 |
| 00004 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf cancelled |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-04 10:04 |
| 00005 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf (Conference Call) cancelled |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-04 10:05 |
| 00006 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf (Conference Call) cancelled |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-04 10:05 |
| 00007 |
Groups - SCA Java Minutes 2008-08-18.doc uploaded |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-04 12:26 |
| 00008 |
RE: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Sharing Java artifacts across contributions |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-04 13:48 |
| 00009 |
Date for the next SCA-J Face 2 Face Meeting - request to change it from the SCA-Binding TC |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-04 14:15 |
| 00010 |
Re: [sca-j] Date for the next SCA-J Face 2 Face Meeting - request to changeit from the SCA-Binding TC |
Mike Edwards
|
2008-09-05 09:11 |
| 00011 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-05 14:55 |
| 00012 |
Re: [sca-j] Groups - SCA-J Teleconf (Conference Call) added |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-07 05:44 |
| 00013 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-08 14:22 |
| 00014 |
Can a single Component expose a mix of @Remotable and non-@Remotable Services? |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-08 14:40 |
| 00015 |
Raw minutes SCA Java 2008-09-08 |
C Vamsi
|
2008-09-08 16:05 |
| 00016 |
Change of email address |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-08 22:55 |
| 00017 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-10 10:05 |
| 00018 |
NEW ISSUE: Describe the concurrency model for each scope |
David Booz
|
2008-09-10 16:40 |
| 00019 |
Need to appoint a replacement Liaison Committee representative |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-11 06:55 |
| 00020 |
RE: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Describe the concurrency model for each scope |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 08:38 |
| 00021 |
Raw chat log of SCA-J call on September 8th |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 08:42 |
| 00022 |
Groups - SCA Java Minutes 2008-09-08.doc uploaded |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-11 09:07 |
| 00023 |
RE: [sca-j] Date for the next SCA-J Face 2 Face Meeting - request to change it from the SCA-Binding TC |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 09:23 |
| 00024 |
NEW ISSUE: Clarify what a Component Implementation can do with threads |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 10:21 |
| 00025 |
RE: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Clarify what a Component Implementation can do with threads - JAVA-62 |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 10:30 |
| 00026 |
A couple of problems that we have previously discussed but have not yet raised issues for them |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 10:48 |
| 00027 |
[sca-j] NEW ISSUE: SCA Spring C & I specification does not state whetherConstructor Injection should be supported |
Ramkumar R1
|
2008-09-11 11:37 |
| 00028 |
[sca-j] NEW ISSUE: SCA Spring C & I specification does not state thepurpose of sca:composite element |
Ramkumar R1
|
2008-09-11 11:44 |
| 00029 |
Re: [sca-j] A couple of problems that we have previously discussed but havenot yet raised issues for them |
Mike Edwards
|
2008-09-11 12:46 |
| 00030 |
RE: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: SCA Spring C & I specification does not state whether Constructor Injection should be supported - JAVA-63 |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 13:11 |
| 00031 |
RE: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: SCA Spring C & I specification does not state the purpose of sca:composite element - JAVA-64 |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 13:12 |
| 00032 |
NEW ISSUE: There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 13:46 |
| 00033 |
NEW ISSUE: Should the definitions of the various Scopes be pushed up to the SCA-Assembly specification? |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 14:23 |
| 00034 |
RE: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components - JAVA-65 |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-11 14:23 |
| 00035 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-12 13:23 |
| 00036 |
SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-15 10:48 |
| 00037 |
RE: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Should the definitions of the various Scopes be pushed up to the SCA-Assembly specification? - JAVA-66 |
Mark Combellack
|
2008-09-15 10:50 |
| 00038 |
Re: [sca-j] SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 14:44 |
| 00039 |
Re: [sca-j] SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments |
C Vamsi
|
2008-09-15 15:16 |
| 00040 |
Re: [sca-j] SCA-J Working Draft 04 Review Comments |
C Vamsi
|
2008-09-15 15:23 |
| 00041 |
NEW ISSUE: Inconsistent use of a and an when referring to annotations |
C Vamsi
|
2008-09-15 16:08 |
| 00042 |
NEW ISSUE: Uniqueness of conversation IDs |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 20:17 |
| 00043 |
NEW ISSUE: Need normative rules for stateful callbacks |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 20:23 |
| 00044 |
NEW ISSUE: Misleading statement about lifetime of stateful callbacks |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 20:40 |
| 00045 |
NEW ISSUE: ConversationAttributes on class or interface? |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 20:47 |
| 00046 |
NEW ISSUE: Incorrect code in section 6.7.2 example |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 20:58 |
| 00047 |
Incorrect code in section 6.7.4 examples |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 21:15 |
| 00048 |
NEW ISSUE: Should not say callback ID is passed in reference parameters |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 21:21 |
| 00049 |
Incorrect reference to "original request" |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 21:25 |
| 00050 |
NEW ISSUE: Incorrect reference to "original request" |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 21:27 |
| 00051 |
NEW ISSUE: Clarify meaning of "should implement" |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 21:34 |
| 00052 |
NEW ISSUE: Incorrect description of @Scope annotation default |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 21:52 |
| 00053 |
NEW ISSUE: Incorrect code in section 6.7.4 examples |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-15 22:09 |
| 00054 |
NEW ISSUE: A remotable service SHOULD be translatable into a generally accepted standard for a service, such as WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0 |
Pradeep Simha
|
2008-09-16 01:01 |
| 00055 |
NEW ISSUE: Need API to set EPR and for a reference invocation |
Pradeep Simha
|
2008-09-16 01:43 |
| 00056 |
NEW ISSUE: Missing word "type" for "return type" in CAA spec - sec 3.1 |
C Vamsi
|
2008-09-16 05:58 |
| 00057 |
NEW ISSUE: Ambiguous description of method for @OneWay annotation |
C Vamsi
|
2008-09-16 06:06 |
| 00058 |
NEW ISSUE: Normative references to SCA Spec docs point to v1.00 docs |
C Vamsi
|
2008-09-16 06:24 |
| 00059 |
Re: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: A remotable service SHOULD be translatable into agenerally accepted standard for a service, such as WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0 |
Mike Edwards
|
2008-09-16 07:54 |
| 00060 |
ISSUE-67: Need normative rules for stateful callbacks |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 13:52 |
| 00061 |
ISSUE-70: ConversationAttributes on class or interface? |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 13:55 |
| 00062 |
ISSUE-69: Misleading statement about lifetime of stateful callbacks |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 13:55 |
| 00063 |
ISSUE-71: Incorrect code in section 6.7.2 example |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:02 |
| 00064 |
ISSUE-68: Uniqueness of conversation IDs |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:06 |
| 00065 |
ISSUE-73: Incorrect reference to "original request" |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:09 |
| 00066 |
ISSUE-72: Should not say callback ID is passed in reference parameters |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:09 |
| 00067 |
ISSUE-74: Clarify meaning of "should implement" |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:14 |
| 00068 |
ISSUE-75: Incorrect description of @Scope annotation default |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:14 |
| 00069 |
ISSUE-76: Incorrect code in section 6.7.4 examples |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:17 |
| 00070 |
ISSUE-77: A remotable service SHOULD be translatable into a generallyaccepted standard for a service, such as WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0 |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:23 |
| 00071 |
ISSUE-79: Missing word "type" for "return type" in CAA spec - sec 3.1 |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:28 |
| 00072 |
ISSUE-81: Normative references to SCA Spec docs point to v1.00 docs |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:32 |
| 00073 |
ISSUE-78: Need API to set EPR and for a reference invocation |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:33 |
| 00074 |
ISSUE-80: Ambiguous description of method for @OneWay annotation |
David Booz
|
2008-09-17 14:33 |
| 00075 |
Groups - SCA Java Minutes 2008-09-15.doc uploaded |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-18 10:43 |
| 00076 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-19 20:28 |
| 00077 |
JEE Subcommittee status |
David Booz
|
2008-09-22 13:03 |
| 00078 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-22 13:56 |
| 00079 |
Resolutions for issues 20, 40, 42, 43 |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-22 14:09 |
| 00080 |
Re: ISSUE 49: Version requirements for SDO, JAXB and JAX-WS |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-22 14:33 |
| 00081 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-22 14:50 |
| 00082 |
Re: ISSUE 48: Proposal |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-22 15:43 |
| 00083 |
Raw text of Sep 22nd meeting minutes |
Pradeep Simha
|
2008-09-22 16:01 |
| 00084 |
Groups - SCA-J_Issues_List.html (SCA-J_Issues_List.html) uploaded |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-22 17:43 |
| 00085 |
Groups - SCA Java Minutes 2008-09-22.doc (SCA Java Minutes 2008-09-22.doc) uploaded |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-22 18:07 |
| 00086 |
ISSUE-82 Inconsistent use of a and an when referring to annotations |
David Booz
|
2008-09-22 18:24 |
| 00087 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-22 18:31 |
| 00088 |
Next SCA-J Telecon - Sept 29 - is on |
David Booz
|
2008-09-22 19:12 |
| 00089 |
ISSUE 25: Revised proposal for non-conversational callbacks |
Simon Nash
|
2008-09-29 14:30 |
| 00090 |
Minutes for TC Meeting of 29th September 2008 |
Mike Edwards
|
2008-09-29 16:37 |
| 00091 |
Groups - SCA Java Minutes 2008-09-29 (SCA Java minutes 2008-09-29.pdf) uploaded |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-29 18:31 |
| 00092 |
Groups - SCA-J Teleconf modified |
[email protected]
|
2008-09-29 18:52 |
| 00093 |
Re: [sca-j] ISSUE 25: Revised proposal for non-conversational callbacks |
Jim Marino
|
2008-09-30 18:08 |
