atom feed20 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.sca-jRe: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13...
FromSent OnAttachments
Mike EdwardsApr 28, 2009 12:37 am 
Simon NashApr 28, 2009 4:39 am 
David BoozApr 28, 2009 4:52 am.gif, .gif
Mike EdwardsApr 28, 2009 5:58 am 
David BoozApr 28, 2009 6:10 am.gif, .gif
Simon NashApr 28, 2009 6:34 am 
David BoozApr 28, 2009 1:10 pm.gif, .gif
Mike EdwardsApr 28, 2009 2:44 pm 
Simon NashApr 29, 2009 2:11 pm 
Simon NashApr 29, 2009 2:15 pm 
David BoozApr 30, 2009 10:49 am.gif, .gif
Simon NashApr 30, 2009 11:09 am 
Simon NashApr 30, 2009 12:28 pm 
Mike EdwardsMay 1, 2009 1:13 am 
Anish KarmarkarMay 1, 2009 4:23 pm 
Anish KarmarkarMay 1, 2009 4:28 pm 
Simon NashMay 2, 2009 3:41 am 
Mike EdwardsMay 7, 2009 7:31 am 
Mike EdwardsMay 7, 2009 7:35 am 
Mike EdwardsMay 7, 2009 7:48 am 
Subject:Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a normative statement
From:Simon Nash (oas@cjnash.com)
Date:Apr 28, 2009 6:34:38 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.sca-j

The problem with this interpretation is that @OneWay would need to appear on the reference side, and a reference must use a Java interface and not a Java class.

Simon

David Booz wrote:

+1

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:bo@us.ibm.com

Inactive hide details for Mike Edwards ---04/28/2009 08:59:22 AM---Simon, I don't think it was the intention of the original woMike Edwards ---04/28/2009 08:59:22 AM---Simon, I don't think it was the intention of the original wording of the spec to

From: Mike Edwards <mike@uk.ibm.com>

To: OASIS Java <sca@lists.oasis-open.org>

Date: 04/28/2009 08:59 AM

Subject: Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a normative statement

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simon,

I don't think it was the intention of the original wording of the spec to permit the implementation pattern that you describe below.

I think that the case of class methods being annotated was there to cover the case where the whole class defines the interface - as occurs for unannotated classes with purely local interfaces.

Maybe I have this wrong, but that is how I understand it.

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@uk.ibm.com

From: Simon Nash <oas@cjnash.com> To: OASIS Java <sca@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 28/04/2009 12:43 Subject: Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a normative statement

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike, I agree that this needs to be made normative.

I had always thought that @OneWay applied only to interface methods. The reference to class methods (in the original text and your proposal) surprises and intrigues me, because this suggests that @OneWay could be applied to a service implementation method without being applied to the corresponding interface method. If this is legal, it would mean that the client invokes the service synchronously, and the service returns back to the client immediately and dispatches the method for subsequent execution.

Do we want to allow this interaction pattern? If we do want to allow it, then I think we need to make this more explicit in the text.

*** NB I am happy for this new issue to be treated as a comment on the Public Review draft - I just don't want this item lost ***

Raiser: Mike Edwards

Target: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev6.doc

Description:

There is a sentence in section 10.13 about @OneWay which in effect describes a normative requirement but is not in the form of a normative statement:

Lines 1923 - 1925:

"The @OneWay annotation is used on a Java interface or class method to indicate that invocations will be dispatched in a non-blocking fashion as described in the section on Asynchronous Programming."

This must be recast into the form of a normative statement

Proposal:

Replace lines 1923 - 1925 with the following normative statement:

When a Java interface method or a Java class method is annotated with @OneWay, the SCA runtime MUST ensure that all invocations of that method are executed in a non-blocking fashion, as described in the section on Asynchonous Programming. [JCA90052]

Yours, Mike.

/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/