SCA-J Conference Call – 27th October 2008



SCA-J Conference Call – 27th October 2008

Attendees:

Mark Combellack Avaya, Inc. Group Member

Bryan Aupperle IBM Group Member

David Booz IBM Group Member

Vamsavardhana Chillakuru IBM Group Member

Mike Edwards IBM Group Member

Yang Lei IBM Group Member

Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation Group Member

Pradeep Simha TIBCO Software Inc. Group Member

Decisions:

- Minutes of 20th October meeting approved

- Java-43 Resolved as per minutes below

- Java-40 Closed no action

- Java-72 Resolved as per minutes below

- Java-71 Resolved as per minutes below

- Java-41 Resolved as per minutes below

Issue Status:

Open: 50

Opened Today: 0

Resolved Today: 5

Actions:

2008-07-15-2: Vladimir to produce a proposal for JAVA-2

2008-07-15-9: MikeE to produce worked example of his proposal for JAVA-1, and to show the invocation model for the F2F

2008-10-06-1: Editors to fix all the other remaining ed issues for WD04 pointed out by Mark, SimonN and Vamsi

2008-10-06-2: Anish – Work with OASIS Staff to get CD01 published

2008-10-13-2: Editors to update references to the [ASSEMBLY] style

2008-10-20-1: Simon to write new proposal with textual changes for JAVA-76

Chat log:

[14:58] Mark Combellack: Agenda:

- Roll Call



- Appointment of scribe. List attached below

- Agenda bashing

- Approval of minutes from previous meeting(s)



Issue Status:

Open: 50

1. Review action items:

2008-07-15-2: Plamen/Vladimir to produce a proposal for JAVA-2

2008-07-15-9: MikeE to produce worked example of his proposal for JAVA-1, and to show the invocation model for the F2F

2008-09-22-2: Simon Nash to write up latest proposal for Java-3

2008-10-06-1: Editors to fix all the other remaining ed issues for WD04 pointed out by Mark, SimonN and Vamsi

2008-10-06-2: Anish  Work with OASIS Staff to get CD01 published

2008-10-13-2: Editors to update references to the [ASSEMBLY] style

2008-10-20-1: Simon to write new proposal with textual changes for JAVA-76

2008-10-20-2: Dave to add note to JAVA-61 or 65 to say that section 8.17 needs to be updated to clarify pooling and instance management. They belong in Section 2.2

2. Update from JEE Sub Committee Chair (Time boxed to maximum of 5 minutes)

3. RFC2119 wording and Testing



4. Accepting new issues:

No new issues

5. Open issues discussion:

JAVA-43 @Reference annotation can also be used on a constructor parameter.





JAVA-73 Incorrect reference to "original request"



JAVA-40 Incorrect interface name - Java Common Annotations and APIs v1.0 - Sec1.7.5



JAVA-72 Should not say callback ID is passed in reference parameters



JAVA-71 Incorrect code in section 6.7.2 example



JAVA-41 Inconsistent method description for @Init and @Destroy annotations



JAVA-42 Incorrect examples of methods annotated @Init and @Destroy



JAVA-52 RequestContext.getCallbackReference() description inadequate



JAVA-39 Incorrect example in Java Component Implementation Spec v1.00 - Sec 1.2.4



JAVA-69 Misleading statement about lifetime of stateful callbacks



JAVA-25 Callback Simplification





JAVA-3 - Local services expose implementation classes as their type



Should introduction of @Local annotation (JAVA-3) affect the Semantics of an Unannotated Implementation



6. AOB

Straggler roll call

7. Adjourn

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

Rotating scribe list:

Yang Lei (0)

Ramkumar Ramalingam (0)

Peter Walker Sun Microsystems (1)

Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems (2)

Peter Peshev SAP AG (2)

Ron Barack SAP AG (3)

Michael Beisiegel IBM (3)

Sanjay Patil SAP AG (3)

Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation (3)

Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation (3)

Vladimir Savchenko SAP AG (1)

Jim Marino Individual (4)

Meeraj Kunnumpurath Individual (1)

Vamsavardhana Chillakuru IBM (2)

Simon Nash (1)

Pradeep Simha TIBCO Software Inc. (4)

Mike Edwards IBM (4)

Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation (5)

Bryan Aupperle IBM (4)

Plamen Pavlov SAP AG (1)

[14:59] Mark Combellack: NOTE: New access code of 3336872913

[15:03] Dave Booz: ping

[15:06] anonymous morphed into anish

[15:11] anish if someone can scribe for the 1st 15 minutes, i can scribe for the rest

[15:12] Mark Combellack:

[15:13] Yang Lei: Item: Agenda bashing. Minutes accept without objections

[15:14] anish no updated on the AIs from me

[15:14] anish still haven't heard from Mary

[15:14] Yang Lei: topics in action items

[15:15] Yang Lei: Item "2008-07-15-9: MikeE to produce worked example of his proposal for JAVA-1, and to show the invocation model for the F2F". Mike done with Java-1

**Correction to chat log** – The JAVA-3 action item is closed and not the JAVA-1 action item

[15:15] anish no update

[15:15] anish have to be on mute for a bit

[15:15] Yang Lei: Item "2008-10-06-2: Anish  Work with OASIS Staff to get CD01 published" no updates

[15:16] Yang Lei: Item "2008-10-20-2: Dave to add note to JAVA-61 or 65 to say that section 8.17 needs to be updated to clarify pooling and instance management. They belong in Section 2.2

" is done.

[15:17] Yang Lei: Item on "Update from JEE Sub Committee Chair " no updates. Dave : nearly complete, except the annotation section, may need more work. the first pass almost complete.

[15:19] Yang Lei: Item "RFC2119 wording and Testing": Dave: assembly testing TC comes up the test doc. Will discuss on the F2F in a few weeks. Can spend 10 min for the general information if people has interest. No request.

[15:20] Yang Lei: Item "Accepting new issues", No new issues

[15:22] Yang Lei: open issue Java-43. Proposal is msg0055.html. Motion have an action item using wording in simon's email.

[15:22] Yang Lei: Bryan second the motion.

[15:22] anish: Simon's proposal: "The @Reference annotation type is used to annotate a Java class field,

a setter method, or a constructor parameter that is used to inject a

service that resolves the reference. The interface of the service

injected is defined by the type of the Java class field or the type

of the input parameter of the setter method or constructor."

[15:23] Mike Edwards: Motion is to Resolve Issue 55 with the words in the email

**Correction to chat log** – Motion is to resolve Issue 43 with the text in email 55

[15:23] anish dave, constructor parameter is missing

[15:24] anish how did that happen, is it part of another issue resolution?

[15:24] Yang Lei: Dave, trying to find out the difference fo the wording from what is in the spec.

[15:24] anish sorry, looking at cd01

[15:27] Yang Lei: Dave, the difference is in the second sentence.  Dave is good with the words

[15:28] anish let me type that

[15:28] Yang Lei: Mike, any objection?

[15:28] anish: the last sentence says 'constructor' and not 'constructor parameter'

[15:30] Yang Lei: Dave: "input parameter" is for the constructor

[15:30] Yang Lei: Motion passed with out objection.

[15:31] Yang Lei: Open issue Java-73 "Incorrect reference to "original request". Simon's motition.

[15:32] Yang Lei: TARGET: Java Common Annotations and APIs, WD 04, section 6.7.4

DESCRIPTION: Incorrect reference to "original request"

On line 589, the reference to "original request" is wrong.

It should say "callback request".

PROPOSAL:

On line 589, replace "original request" by "callback request".

[15:34] Yang Lei: Mike, callback request imply the call is from the service.

[15:34] Yang Lei: Mike, the change does not seem to clarify.

[15:37] Yang Lei: Anish, the client is send a requst to the service, service using the callback to call to the client. So it is the callback request in use not the original request.

[15:38] Yang Lei: Dave, agrees that original request is wrong, not sure to use "callback request" or not.

[15:40] Yang Lei: Dave, sending "callback request" means the execution is at the service side, while we are talking about the client executing a request..

[15:40] Yang Lei: Dave/Anish, we need a picture on provider and consumer to describe this.

[15:40] Yang Lei: Dave/Mark, we will table it

[15:41] Yang Lei: Issue "JAVA-40 Incorrect interface name - Java Common Annotations and APIs v1.0 - Sec1.7.5".

[15:41] Yang Lei: RAISED BY: Vamsi

DESCRIPTION:

Java Common Annotations and APIs v1.0 - Sec 1.7.5 - Line 945 reads:

"The ServiceReference Java interface has the following methods:"

This immediately follows the interface definition of Conversation.

PROPOSAL: Change ServiceReference to Conversation so that the line reads

"The Conversation Java interface has the following methods:"

See

[15:42] Yang Lei: Mark, are people happy

[15:43] anish: motion: to CNA as it is already fixed in CD01

[15:43] Yang Lei: Mike second the motion

[15:43] Yang Lei: Mark, pass the motion without objection.

[15:44] Yang Lei: Issue "JAVA-72 Should not say callback ID is passed in reference parameters"

[15:44] Yang Lei: TARGET: Java Common Annotations and APIs, WD 04, section 6.7.4

DESCRIPTION: Should not say callback ID is passed in reference parameters

On lines 574-575, the parenthetical comment "(i.e., reference parameters)"

implies a specific wire representation. Wire representations are defined

by SCA bindings specifications and not by this specification.

PROPOSAL:

On lines 574-575, remove "(i.e., reference parameters)"

[15:44] anish: +1 to not calling it "i.e."

[15:44] anish: either remove it or call it "eg"

[15:44] Yang Lei: Dave like on 575.

[15:45] Yang Lei: Mike is happy with it. Accept the issue.

[15:45] Yang Lei: Dave second.

[15:45] Yang Lei: Accept the motion to use the words in the issue.

[15:45] Mike Edwards: Motion: Resolve issue 72 using the proposal in the JIRA

[15:45] Yang Lei: Motion passed.

[15:46] Yang Lei: Issue "JAVA-71 Incorrect code in section 6.7.2 example"

[15:46] Yang Lei: TARGET: Java Common Annotations and APIs, WD 04, section 6.7.2

DESCRIPTION: Incorrect code in section 6.7.2 example

On line 511, this use of getCallbackID() is incorrect. This

code should obtain a RequestContext either by injection or from

the ComponentContext, then call RequestContext.getServiceReference()

to get the currently active invocation service reference, then

call getCallbackID() on that.

PROPOSAL:

Replace lines 510 through 511 by:

@Context RequestContext context;

public void receiveResult(String result) {

     Object key = context.getServiceReference().getCallbackID();

[15:48] Yang Lei: Mike, happy with the proposal

[15:48] anish: +1 for the fix

[15:48] Yang Lei: Mike , Motion: Resolve issue 71 using the proposal in the JIRA

[15:48] anonymous morphed into Pradeep

[15:48] Yang Lei: Motion passed without objection.

[15:49] Yang Lei: issue "JAVA-41 Inconsistent method description for @Init and @Destroy annotations"

[15:49] Yang Lei: RAISED BY: Vamsi

DESCRIPTION:

Java Common Annotations and APIs v1.0 - Sec 1.2.4 - Line 269:

269 .... Note that only public, no argument methods may be annotated as

lifecycle methods.

Sec 1.8.8. - Lines 1225 to 1227:

1225 The @Destroy annotation type is used to annotate a Java class method

that will be called when the scope

1226 defined for the local service implemented by the class ends. The

method must have a void return value and

1227 no arguments. The annotated method must be public.

Sec 1.8.11 - Lines 1290 to 1293:

1290 The @Init annotation type is used to annotate a Java class method that

is called when the scope defined for

1291 the local service implemented by the class starts. The method must

have a void return value and no

1292 arguments. The annotated method must be public. The annotated method

is called after all property and

1293 reference injection is complete.

REASON: Sec 1.2.4 does not talk about return type of the method whereas

sections 1.8.8. and 1.8.11 say that the method must have a void return

value.

PROPOSAL: Make the method description consistent across these three

sections. Change line 269 to read the following:

.... Note that only public, no argument methods with a void return type may

be annotated as lifecycle methods.

In lines 1226 and 1291, change "void return value" to "void return type".

See

[15:50] Yang Lei: Mike: line numbers are not correct.

[15:51] Mark Combellack: 8.12 @init lines 1269

[15:53] anish: was this part of resolution of issue 37

[15:53] Yang Lei: Mike, access modifier was taken out in the past..

[15:53] anish:

[15:54] Yang Lei: Mike, will form a proposal .

[15:55] Mike Edwards: Motion to resolve Issue 41 with the following changes (all references are to CD01)

[15:55] Mike Edwards: 1) Change line 121 (section 2.2) to say:

[15:55] Mike Edwards: Note that only no argument methods with a void return type may be annotated as lifecycle methods

[15:56] anish I smell a MUST here

[15:57] Bryan Aupperle: The MUST is in sections 8.19 and 8.12

[15:57] Mike Edwards: change to:

[15:57] Mike Edwards: Note that only no argument methods with a void return type can be annotated as lifecycle methods

[15:57] Mike Edwards: 2) Change line 1193 in section 8.9 to:

[15:58] Mike Edwards: The method MAY have any access modifier and MUST have a void return type and no arguments.

[15:58] Mike Edwards: 3) Change line 1270 in section 8.12

[15:58] Mike Edwards: The method MAY have any access modifier and MUST have a void return type and no arguments.

[15:59] Yang Lei: Motions: resolve issue 37 with Mike's proposal

[15:59] Yang Lei: Bryan second the motion

[15:59] Yang Lei: Motion pass without objection.

**Correction to chat log** – Wrong issue number in motion text above – it should have been issue 41 – see below

[16:00] Yang Lei: Yang Lei: Motions: resolve issue 41 with Mike's proposal

Yang Lei: Bryan second the motion

Yang Lei: Motion pass without objection.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download