RE: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Problems with definition of @Service annotation - [JAVA-135]

Hi,

 

I have raised this new issue as Issue 135. See http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-135

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

Mark Combellack| Software Developer| Avaya | Eastern Business Park | St. Mellons | Cardiff |
CF3 5EA | Voice: +44 (0) 29 2081 7624 | 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Simon Nash
[mailto:]

> Sent: 23 February 2009 11:34

> To: OASIS Java

> Subject: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE:
Problems with definition of @Service

> annotation

> 

> TARGET: Java Common Annotations and APIs

> 

> DESCRIPTION: Problems with definition of @Service annotation

> 

> 1. The default for the interfaces attribute is an empty array

>     of classes, but the default for the value attribute is

>     Void.class.  These defaults are contradictory.

> 

> 2. The meaning of Void.class if specified explicitly or implied

>     by default is not defined.

> 

> 3. If the above points are addressed, there is no reason to

>     state that @Service on its own is meaningless, because it

>     would have a well-defined meaning.

> 

> PROPOSAL:

> 

> a. Change the default for the interfaces attribute to
{Void.class}.

> 

> b. Replace the sentence:

>      A @Service annotation with no attributes is meaningless, it
is the

>      same as not having the annotation there at all.

>     by the sentence:

>      A @Service annotation that specifies a single class object
Void.class

>      either explicitly or by default is equivalent to not having
the

>      annotation there at all.  The @Service annotation MUST NOT
specify

>      Void.class in conjunction with any other service class or
interface.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> 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