Folks,
My view is that IF the interface class
is annotated @Remotable then it is *NOT* necessary
to introspect the component type of
a service or reference which uses that interface class
such that the <interface.java/>
element contains the @remotable attribute set to true.
I think this is consistent with other
places where the interface class contains other forms of
annotation. @Callback is the best
example in my opinion - here the interface class can
contain @Callback and reference a callback
interface, but the introspected componentType
simply has a <interface.java/>
element which references the interface and it does not
require the callback interface to be
referenced as well and yet the interface is still treated as
a callback interface.
I agree with Simon's view that redundant
information is undesirable.
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:
Simon Nash <> wrote on 16/06/2009
21:12:57:
> I think we need to be consistent here. It seems to me that there
are
> two possible consistent positions:
>
> 1. In the component type, specify the @remotable attribute only when
> necessary (i.e., include it only when its value is "true"
and when
> it is needed to override the remotability setting that
would
> otherwise be inferred from the @interface attribute).
>
> 2. In the component type, always specify the @remotable attribute
> (i.e., include it with an explicit value of "true"
or "false"
> whether or not this duplicates information in the @interface
attribute).
>
> My preference is for 1, as in general I think it's better not to
> specify redundant information. I think your preference is for
2.
> Any other views on this?
>
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
