Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
<snip>
For 1, 2, 3 and 5, I think it is a good idea to introduce a new interface
definition as a top level element in SCDLs. This new interface definition
could use any existing interface definition and add additional semantics.
For example, something like
<interface.xxx name="myConversationalInterface"
interface="myNonConversationalInterface" conversational="true">
<operation name="method1" endsConversation="true"/>
</interface.xxx>
can yield a conversational interface "myConversationalInterface" from a
non-conversational interface "myNonConversationalInterface". This should
work as if there were annotations on the original interface definition. With
this new interface definition in place, we may not need "conversational"
intent on service or reference and "myConversationalInterface" can be used
whereever "myNonConversationalInterface" were to be used along with a
"conversational" intent on the service or reference.
Please comment if any of the above does not make sense or suggest any
alternative ways to deal with these issues.
++Vamsi
<snip>
Vamsi,
Simon has given a good comprehensive response to your main points - I would like to focus on this
final suggestion.
You will meet some substantial opposition in the spec group to the idea of creating a new SCDL-based
interface definition language. The group has rejected such suggestions more than once in the past.
The argument is that there are already very good interface definition languages available - and that
where SCA extensions are necessary, they can be added as extension annotations to those existing
languages. Providing yet another parallel interface definition language simply adds to the
complexity of SCA without a corresponding benefit. I believe that all the issues you raise are
already covered by the specs - or there are open issues awaiting resolution.
You are welcome to make suggestions to the SCA specification group, of course, but I thought it
useful to give you a heads-up on the likely reaction.
Yours, Mike.
