On reading Mike's email again, I think
I misinterpreted it originally, and that we are probably in agreement here.
I don't believe Mike or Vamsi were implying that having @Local on
an interface would mean that the implementation would no longer come into
the "unannotated" category. This would mean that cases
1 and 2 in my list below can be combined.
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
27/08/2008 15:29
To
"OASIS Java" <>
cc
Subject
Re: [sca-j] Should introduction of @Local
annotation (JAVA-3) 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@IBMGB
27/08/2008 10:42
To
"OASIS Java" <>
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:
From:
C Vamsi <>
To:
Simon Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:
Date:
27/08/2008 09:09
Subject:
[sca-j] Should introduction of @Local
annotation (JAVA-3) affect 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
<>
To
27/08/2008 12:57
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
<>
To
25/08/2008 17:25
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: , 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
