Hi,
The SCA 1.0 spec api looks good to me. I have two minor comments.
1) The JavaDoc for @AllowsPassByRerence is a bit misleading.
The Java spec says: "Either a whole class implementing a remotable service
or an individual remotable service method implementation can be annotated
using the @AllowsPassByReference annotation."
2) In the spec, it uses "null" as the default value for annotation
attributes. It's not allowed by java. The APIs we have the project fix the
problem.
3) Java Common Annotations and APIs spec should use "Class<B>" instead of
"Class" between 250 and 255.
250 interface ComponentContext{
251 .
252 <B> ServiceReference<B> createSelfReference (Class businessInterface);
253 <B> ServiceReference<B> createSelfReference (Class businessInterface,
254 String serviceName);
255 }
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Review of spec classes wanted
Is anyone else going to be reviewing these or should I start to prep
for a release?
--
Jeremy
On 2/26/07, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Feb 25, 2007, at 9:24 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 25, 2007, at 1:23 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been through the sca-api-r1.0 classes and tried to bring
>>>> them in line with the specification, including applicable
>>>> errata :-) Apart from one issue with @Property I think they are
>>>> now in alignment.
>>>>
>>>> It would be good if a couple of other people could review these
>>>> so we can release them.
>>>> Any volunteers?
>>> I'll volunteer although I'm not the best person to do it in terms
>>> of being a fresh set of eyes. Also, I'm a bit concerned about the
>>> extensions related to DataTypes being in there. I think it is
>>> critical we have this information but not at the expense of
>>> violating the spec. If people agree, I will volunteer to go in
>>> and provide an alternative today that uses a Tuscany API.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> Provisional +1 assuming the @Property#override and
>> @Property#xmlType are fixed.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>
> In r511727 I removed the @Property#override and replaced it with
> the use of @Property#required where appropriate.
>
> Jim
>
I changed the kernel to support @EndConversation and I see Jeremy has
removed @Property#xmlType so +1 for the release.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
