On Feb 27, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
Raymond Feng wrote:
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]
A few more comments:
- ComponentContext is missing a class overview Javadoc
- Conversation.getConversionID should be renamed to getConversationID
- Conversation is missing a class overview Javadoc
That's a bug in the spec and has been noted as a problem on the OSOA
website.
- The spec defines @Conversation, it's missing
- @Context talks about CompositeContext, should say ComponentContext
- The spec defines @Scope.eager default=false, it's missing
That's also a bug in the spec and has been noted as a problem on the
OSOA website.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
