Pete,
Cattle-prod of high voltage required for the spec team then.....
;-)
Yours, Mike.
Pete Robbins wrote:
I agree Mike but the SDO spec does not currently define a set of headers
that are compilable so adding in things like constructors/destructors is
necessary. When we have a set of headers from the spec group we should use
those to replace the current Tuscany headers. Until then we should aim to
get them as close as possible.
Cheers,
On 22/06/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks,
My 10 cents is that it is not right to add methods to the spec API
classes.
My view would be that compliance would require spec-defined classes to
provide the spec, the whole spec and nothing but the spec. This is
certainly the approach to compliance taken for most Java APIs. It's OK
to have officially defined extension points - the classic one is the
interface / implementation split - but in general, if some object is
supposed to be an implementation of the spec, then that is all it should
be and implementation details should not affect using applications.
Compliance is still much of a blank sheet for both SDO and SCA - but I
will certainly argue along these lines when compliance becomes a
significant matter in the OASIS TCs that are about to form....
Yours, Mike.
Pete Robbins wrote:
> Michael,
>
> An interesting set of questions! I'm not convinced that adding methods
to
> the spec api classes is a compliance issue (in fact it may be
impossible
to
> implement without modifying the spec apis ... constructors etc.) but it
> could be a portability issue if it is not clear that the methods are
> implementation specific.
>
<snip>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
