Now that we have agreed to permit reinjection into conversational-scoped
instances, this (re)raises the question of callback reinjection.
We had decided not to permit this at all, based on the earlier decisions
to limit reinjection to composite-scoped instances only, and to prohibit
callback injection into composite-scoped instances.
The reversal of the first of these decisions means that we need to
consider the case of a conversational-scoped instance with a bidirectional
interface that is invoked by two different callers using the same
application-generated conversationID. Section 6.6.1 gives some hints that
it is possible, without saying so explicitly.
We could address this in (at least) four ways:
1. Prohibit callback injection for conversation-scoped components, as we
have done for composite-scoped components. This seems bad because it
penalises a common case (calls from one client per conversational
instance) in favour of a rare case (calls from multiple clients per
conversational instance).
2. Say that in this case, callback reinjection MUST be done. This goes
against the "big MAY" for other types of reinjection. It can also lead to
non-deterministic behavior in multithreaded scenarios.
3. Say that in this case, callback reinjection MUST NOT be done. This
puts the burden on developers to know that they should avoid using
injected callbacks if there is a possibilty that the component will be
invoked by multiple clients within the same conversation.
4. Say that in this case, callback reinjection MAY be done. This has a
similar effect to option 3.
To start the ball rolling, I suggest that we adopt option 3. What do
others think?
Simon
Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
Simon Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB
15/01/2008 22:32
To
"OASIS Java" <>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 - Dependency reinjection
Two approved motions from last week's call were not incorporated into the
v3 version of the table. These were:
1. ComponentContext.getServiceReference() should be always in sync with
the current configuration of the domain
2. no objections to dropping the column, as long as long as the text typed
by Michael is present
I have made these changes in the v4 version (attached).
Simon
Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
"Michael Rowley" <>
10/01/2008 21:19
To
"OASIS Java" <>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 - Dependency reinjection
Here is an updated table, based on the last TC meeting.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
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
