JAVA-17: Proposed resolution

[Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>]

The resolution of JAVA-55 has clarified the rules for which setter
methods are taken into account when introspecting for properties
and references.  The relevant text is as follows:

  The following setter methods and fields are taken into consideration:
   1. Public setter methods that are not part of the implementation of
      an SCA service (either explicitly marked with @Service or implicitly
      defined as described above)
   2. Public or protected fields unless there is a public setter method
      for the same name

Point 1 above makes it clear that the "setX" examples given in the JIRA
are not properties or references.

The JIRA also raises the following question.
  "Another question would be: Is it valid to have a setter method
   denote both a property/reference and business operation?"

For introspected properties and references, the text in point 1 above
rules out this possibility.  However, the possibility does exist for
properties and references specified by explicit annotations, for example:

  public class MyServiceImpl implements MyService {
      @Property
      public void setX(String x) {
          ...
      }
  }

  @Remotable
  public interface MyService {
      void setX(String x);
  }

I believe this could be useful in some cases and should not be
disallowed.

I therefore propose that this issue should be closed as having been
resolved by JAVA-55.

   Simon