Ok, I hadn't realized that callback had already set a precedent. I still stand by my assertion that the componentType should be a reflection of the implementation artifacts, but I don't want to argue against an existing precedent at this point in the spec lifecycle.
BTW, I don't see this as redundant info, I see it as the means for tooling to ensure the component shape contract without having to look at the implementation artifacts.
Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:
Mike Edwards ---06/17/2009 01:58:14 AM---Folks, My view is that IF the interface class is annotated @Remotable then it is
From:
Mike Edwards <>
To:
"OASIS Java" <>
Date:
06/17/2009 01:58 AM
Subject:
Re: [sca-j] JAVA-153: Proposed resolution rev3
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
