On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 16:39 +0100, Michel Drescher wrote:
Hi Peter,
I'm referring to spec v0.7 in my inline comments:
On 28 Apr 2006, at 16:19, Peter G Lane wrote:
Great start! Just a couple of comments:
1) I'd prefer something like "ManagedJobFactoryResourcePropeties" instead of "JobFactoryRPDocument". That way everything is spelled out and it's named after the full port type name.
Referring to 3) below, I would suggest "JobFactoryResourcePropertiesDocument" (or "JobFactoryResourcePropertyDocument"?), reconciling your and my suggestions.
"JobFactoryResourcePropertiesDocument" is fine with me.
2) I think the unnamed complexType under the "JobFactoryRPDocument" element should be named. Following my preference from #2, this is what I would like to see (or something similar):
<xsd:element name="ManagedJobFactoryResourceProperties" type="tns:ManagedJobFactoryResourcePropertiesType"/> <xsd:complexType name="ManagedJobFactoryResourcePropertiesType"> . . . </xsd:complexType>
This is primarily motivated by implementation concerns, but it's not like working around broken tooling. I just don't like leaving class names up to the tooling. Specifying a name explicitly usually dictates what it will be seen as in the API. In addition, it mandates that any reuse of the element be done via a ref (like Subscribe).
Agreed, according to the notes from 1).
3) The port type name is specified as "JobFactoryPortType" instead of "ManagedJobFactoryPortType" from the spec. If this was something decided upon in the last call I apologize.
I think we might be talking about different documents. I'm attaching what Ian posted to GT's gram-dev mailing list. He didn't send a UML diagram with it, so my comments are also straight from the text. Could you attach or post a link to the document you all are using. Thanks. Peter
I took it directly from the section headings (section 4) and not from the UML picture in figure 1 (page 5) I guess pictures get easier out of sync with draft specifications in much flux, so I preferred the section headings. Also, I think "ManagedJobFactory" could be misinterpreted as a JobFactory that is managed which would lead to the wrong assumptions. But I am probably nitpicking here. The point is that I have no trouble changing it, if necessary.
I attached the updated versions below.
Cheers, Michel