[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a normativestatement
Dave,
Thanks, this is a more useful way to express the issue.
The question is whether one-way invocation is
1) a property of the service, that the reference must obey
2) a property of the service, that the reference can choose
whether to use or not
3) a property of the reference, that the service doesn't
know is happening
Simon
David Booz wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying. I see that you're questioning the validity of
> specifying @OneWay methods on service interfaces.
>
> I was a bit surprised to find that the Assemlby spec doesn't say
> anything about one-way/non-blocking behavior. There's a hole here in
> that another CI spec could define it as a service runtime behavior,
> resulting in no one performing the asynchronous dispatch. Is this a
> discussion we've had before?
>
> Java CAA certainly hints that it's the client runtime (probably the
> binding) which implements the behavior but we could definitely make this
> more explicit with RFC2119 words.
>
> 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:booz@us.ibm.com
>
> Inactive hide details for Simon Nash ---04/29/2009 05:12:29 PM---Mike
> Edwards wrote: >Simon Nash ---04/29/2009 05:12:29 PM---Mike Edwards wrote: >
>
>
> From:
> Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>
>
> To:
> OASIS Java <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> Date:
> 04/29/2009 05:12 PM
>
> Subject:
> Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a normative
> statement
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Mike Edwards wrote:
> >
> > Simon,
> >
> > So, if an unannotated Java POJO implements only local interfaces and is
> > introspected as a single local service
> > typed by the POJO class itself, as described in JAVA CI spec sections
> > 2.3 and 8, what does the componentType
> > of that service look like and how would a <reference/> element be
> > configured in order to invoke the service offered
> > by a component using the unannotated POJO as an implementation?
> >
> The componentType of the service component would have a <service>
> element with <interface.java interface="name-of-the-impl-class"/>
>
> So far, so good. On the reference side, things get more tricky.
> For example, if the reference is an injected field, the type of
> this field can't be declared in Java code with a type of
> "name-of-the-impl-class". In order for the SCA runtime to
> successfully inject a reference proxy, the type of the field
> would need to be an interface type that is compatible (in the SCA
> sense) with the class that is used for the service's interface.
>
> For any one-way methods that are part of the service contract,
> the @OneWay annotation would need to appear on that method in
> the reference's interface, so that the reference side SCA runtime
> would know that a non-blocking invocation is required.
>
> It is an interesting question whether or not @OneWay would also
> need to appear on the corresponding method of the service's
> interface (aka impl-class). The non-blocking invocation is
> performed on the reference side, so from that perspective it
> would make no difference whether or not @OneWay appears on
> the service side. If the Assembly compatibility rules required
> matching one-way annotations on methods, this would require @OneWay
> to appear on the service side as well. However, the interface
> compatibility rules as currently written don't require this, so
> the following would be legal:
>
> (on service side)
>
> public class MyServiceImpl {
> public void myAsyncMethod() {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> (on reference side)
>
> public interface MyService {
> @OneWay
> public void myAsyncMethod();
> }
>
> public class MyClientImpl {
>
> @Reference
> protected MyService ref;
>
> ...
> ref.myAsyncMethod(); // non-blocking invocation
> ...
> }
>
> In this example, it makes no difference whether or not the
> method myAsyncMethod() of MyServiceImpl has a @OneWay
> annotation.
>
> Simon
>
> >
> > 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: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
> >
> >
> > From: Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>
> > To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Date: 28/04/2009 14:38
> > Subject: Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a
> > normative statement
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem with this interpretation is that @OneWay would need
> > to appear on the reference side, and a reference must use a
> > Java interface and not a Java class.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > David Booz wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > 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:booz@us.ibm.com
> > >
> > > Inactive hide details for Mike Edwards ---04/28/2009 08:59:22
> > > AM---Simon, I don't think it was the intention of the original woMike
> > > Edwards ---04/28/2009 08:59:22 AM---Simon, I don't think it was the
> > > intention of the original wording of the spec to
> > >
> > >
> > > From:
> > > Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>
> > >
> > > To:
> > > OASIS Java <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >
> > > Date:
> > > 04/28/2009 08:59 AM
> > >
> > > Subject:
> > > Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on @OneWay requires a normative
> > > statement
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simon,
> > >
> > > I don't think it was the intention of the original wording of the spec
> > > to permit the implementation
> > > pattern that you describe below.
> > >
> > > I think that the case of class methods being annotated was there to
> > > cover the case where the
> > > whole class defines the interface - as occurs for unannotated classes
> > > with purely local interfaces.
> > >
> > > Maybe I have this wrong, but that is how I understand it.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
> > >
> > > From: Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>
> > > To: OASIS Java <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Date: 28/04/2009 12:43
> > > Subject: Re: [sca-j] [NEW ISSUE] Section 10.13 on
> > @OneWay requires a
> > > normative statement
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mike,
> > > I agree that this needs to be made normative.
> > >
> > > I had always thought that @OneWay applied only to interface methods.
> > > The reference to class methods (in the original text and your
> proposal)
> > > surprises and intrigues me, because this suggests that @OneWay could
> > > be applied to a service implementation method without being applied to
> > > the corresponding interface method. If this is legal, it would mean
> > > that the client invokes the service synchronously, and the service
> > > returns back to the client immediately and dispatches the method for
> > > subsequent execution.
> > >
> > > Do we want to allow this interaction pattern? If we do want to allow
> > > it, then I think we need to make this more explicit in the text.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > Mike Edwards wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *** NB I am happy for this new issue to be treated as a comment
> on the
> > > > Public Review draft - I just don't want this item lost ***
> > > >
> > > > Raiser: Mike Edwards
> > > >
> > > > Target: sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev6.doc
> > > >
> > > > Description:
> > > >
> > > > There is a sentence in section 10.13 about @OneWay which in effect
> > > > describes a normative requirement but is not in the
> > > > form of a normative statement:
> > > >
> > > > Lines 1923 - 1925:
> > > >
> > > > "The @OneWay annotation is used on a Java interface or class
> method to
> > > > indicate that invocations will be dispatched
> > > > in a non-blocking fashion as described in the section on
> Asynchronous
> > > > Programming."
> > > >
> > > > This must be recast into the form of a normative statement
> > > >
> > > > Proposal:
> > > >
> > > > Replace lines 1923 - 1925 with the following normative statement:
> > > >
> > > > When a Java interface method or a Java class method is
> annotated with
> > > > @OneWay, the SCA runtime MUST ensure that all
> > > > invocations of that method are executed in a non-blocking
> fashion, as
> > > > described in the section on Asynchonous Programming.
> > > > [JCA90052]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > /
> > > > /
> > > >
> > > > /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/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]