[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] Should introduction of @Local annotation (JAVA-3) affect theSemantics of an Unannotated Implementation
We may also want to consider that when there is no @Service annotaion on
the implementation class, the interfaces implemented by the class that are
annotated with @Remotable (or @Local) will result in a Service.
Currently lines 375-376 in CI spec say:
"Public setter methods that are not included in any interface specified
by an @Service annotation."
We may have to change this to:
"Public setter methods that are not included in the interface of any of
the Services provided by the Java component."
This change is required irrespective of @Local annotation.
++Vamsi
Mike Edwards
<mike_edwards@uk.
ibm.com> To
"OASIS Java"
28/08/2008 15:10 <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
Re: [sca-j] Should introduction of
@Local annotation (JAVA-3) affect
the Semantics of an Unannotated
Implementation
Simon,
The algorithm for calculating the componentType of an unannotated
implementation already makes a
distinction dependent on the marking of an interface used by the
implementation, so the different rules
already exist:
Lines 384/385 from the C&I spec:
If its type is complex, then if the type is an interface marked by
@Remotable, then it is a reference; otherwise, it is a property.
The introduction of an @Local annotation would affect this part of the spec
at least. �I would expect that an annotated interface would
be regarded as marking a reference, even if it is marked @Local.
By extension, it is worth asking whether *any* SCA annotation in the
interface implies treating its use as indicating a reference.
Yours, �Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 � �Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email: �mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
From: Simon Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To: "OASIS Java" <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 27/08/2008 18:13
Subjec Re: [sca-j] Should introduction of @Local annotation (JAVA-3)
t: affect the Semantics of an Unannotated Implementation
I take a slightly different view on this. �I think an unannotated
implementation is exactly that. �I don't think it means that all the
interfaces referenced by the implementation must also be
unannotated. �However, I'm open to discussion on the best way to handle
this. �Perhaps we need different rules for:
1. Unannotated implementation / unannotated interfaces
2. Unannotated implementation / annotated interfaces
3. Annotated implementation
� �Simon
Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156 �Fax +44-1962-818999
Mike
Edwards/UK/IBM@IB
MGB To
"OASIS Java" <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
27/08/2008 10:42 cc
Subject
Re: [sca-j] Should introduction of @Local
annotation (JAVA-3) affect the Semantics of an
Unannotated Implementation
Folks,
An @Local annotation would certainly affect the semantics of an unannotated
implementation.
An interface so marked would clearly indicate something relating to an SCA
reference.
Yours, �Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 � �Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email: �mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
From: C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
To: Simon Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 27/08/2008 09:09
Subje [sca-j] Should introduction of @Local annotation (JAVA-3) affect
ct: the Semantics of an Unannotated Implementation
Simon,
Should the introduction of @Local annotation affect the "Semantics of an
Unannotated Implementation" (section 8 in sca-javaci-draft-20070926.doc)
where we are currently using only interfaces marked with @Remotable in
computing the references/properties of an implementation?
++Vamsi
� � � � � Simon Nash
� � � � � <NASH@uk.ibm.com>
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �To
� � � � � 27/08/2008 12:57 � � � � �sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �cc
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Subject
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Re: [sca-j] Introspecting services
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � offered by a Java implementation
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � class without @Service
Raymond,
Minor nit: the @OneWay annotation applies to a method, not to an
interface. �Your example should be updated to show this.
In your example, these services are local. �Issue JAVA-3 has proposed a new
annotation @Local that could be used on Interface1and Interface2 to allow
them to be recognized by the introspection algorithm.
I believe this discussion can be handled under JAVA-3 and there is no need
to create a new issue.
� Simon
Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156 �Fax +44-1962-818999
Raymond Feng
<rfeng@us.ibm.com>
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �To
25/08/2008 17:25 � � � � � � � � � � � � � �sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �cc
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Subject
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � [sca-j] Introspecting
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � services offered by a Java
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � implementation class without
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � @Service
Hi,
In Java Component Implementation Specification 1.00, we have the following
statements:
143 1.2.1.3. Introspecting services offered by a Java implementation
144 In the cases described below, the services offered by a Java
implementation class may be determined
145 through introspection, eliding the need to specify them using @Service.
The following algorithm is used to
146 determine how services are introspected from an implementation class:
147 If the interfaces of the SCA services are not specified with the
@Service annotation on the implementation
148 class, it is assumed that all implemented interfaces that have been
annotated as @Remotable are the
149 service interfaces provided by the component. If none of the
implemented interfaces is remotable, then by
150 default the implementation offers a single service whose type is the
implementation class.
What if an interface is annotated with SCA annotations such as @OneWay or
@Callback?
For example:
public class MyServiceImpl implements Interface1, Interface2 {
}
@Callback(CallbackInterface.class)
public interface Interface1 {
}
@OneWay
public interface Interface2 {
}
By the spec, there is only one service named MyServiceImpl. But isn't it
more natural that we should find two SCA services: Interface1 and
Interface2? Please clarify.
Thanks,
Raymond
Raymond Feng
Senior Software Engineer, Open Source SCA Development, Apache Tuscany
Project
IBM Bay Area Lab, 1001 E Hillsdale Blvd, Suite 400, Foster City, CA 94404,
USA
E-mail: rfeng@us.ibm.com, Notes: Raymond Feng/Burlingame/IBM, Tel:
650-645-8117, T/L: 367-8117
Web & Blog: www.enjoyjava.com- The Cyber Cafeteria to Enjoy Java
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. �Follow this link to 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
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
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]