[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 - Dependency reinjection
Seems like a hack to me. And it doesn't address the larger problem where
the reference suddenly becomes unusable because the target was changed.
This is similar to a referential integrity problem. The component wants to
state that it can't tolerate the loss of a valid reference part way through
it's processing.
Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome
Mike Edwards
<mike_edwards@uk.
ibm.com> To
sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
12/05/2007 04:28 cc
AM
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 - Dependency
reinjection
Folks,
Controlling whether reinjection is allowed AT ALL for a component is
relatively simple in
my opinion:
- if a component does not want reference reinjection to occur, ever, then
the implementation
simply declares the reference annotation on a constructor parameter and
does not
provide the reference via either a field or via a setter method. If the
reference is only
injectable via the constructor then it can never be changed by the
container.
This simple design choice allows complete control by the developer of the
implementation.
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
David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>
05/12/2007 02:37 To
sca-j@lists.oasis-open.o
rg
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 -
Dependency reinjection
It's simple, just not well expressed. I'm wondering if there are cases
where a component implementation might want to delay or "opt out" of
re-injection either permanently or temporarily. There might be cases where
a particular component implementation really can't tolerate a re-injection.
I was thinking out loud about using concurrency control as a temporary
means to delay re-injection. There are other ways. Maybe a different
approach like an annotation @AllowsReinjection (or the opposite) is
sufficient.
I understand that what you are proposing is optional for a runtime to
support, but for those runtimes that do support it, each component
implementation might need to have a say in how it works. Still thinking
out loud....
Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome
"Michael Rowley"
<mrowley@bea.com>
To
12/04/2007 08:11 David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS,
PM <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 - Dependency
reinjection
-----Original Message-----
From: David Booz [mailto:booz@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:06 PM
To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 - Dependency reinjection
Michael,
And tagging on a few more questions:
1) I presume that the use of setter based injection would allow for]
concurrency serialization by the component implementation so that it
could:
stabilize it's use of references. This brings up an interesting
question;:
is there (or should there be) some linkage between the lifecycle of
the
target service and these references? Just because a ref target has
been
altered, does not mean that the target service is gone. It's the
lifecycle
of that target service which will determine how long a reference
remains
usable after a wiring change occurs. Just raising the question for
now
because it will affect all the component's whose references can't be
re-injected.
[MR: I’m sorry, but I don’t follow you.]
2) I'm curious about your introduction of InvalidServiceException.
We
already have ServiceUnavailableException. I think there's room to
clarify
the wording of SUE to make room for ISE..
[MR: I think that a service that has been correctly identified, but isn’t
currently available is quite different from a service that is incorrectly
identified (it isn’t in the logical domain). As such, I think it deserves
a different exception.]
3) +1 to Mike E.
[MR: No objection from me.]
Michael
Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome
Mike Edwards
<mike_edwards@uk.
ibm.com>
To
"OASIS Java"
12/04/2007 10:22 <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
AM
cc
Subject
RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 -
Dependency
reinjection
Michael,
Thanks for the proposal. It is good to have something concrete as it
help
crystallise the
issues.
Please help me understand the rationale for treating Composite-scoped
components
differently from Conversation scoped components.
Both types of component have an extended lifecycle. Both may easily
have a
lifecycle
that spans changes in configuration that affects their references,
even
where those
references are not conversational and do not in themselves involve
some
extended
lifetime. Why is it justified to change references in the one case
and not
allow changes
in the other case?
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
"Michael Rowley" <mrowley@bea.com> wrote on 29/11/2007 20:19:28:
>
> I took an action item to make a more specific proposal for:
> dependency reinjection. Here it is:
>
> Reinjection
> -----------
>
> References MAY be reinjected after the initial creation of a
> component due to a change in wiring that has occurred since the
> component was initialized. In order for reinjection to occur, the
> following MUST be true:
> - The component MUST be composite-scoped.
> - The reference MUST use either field-based injection or setter
> injection. References that are injected through constructor
> injection MUST NOT be changed.
> - If the reference has a conversational interface, then a
> conversation MUST NOT be active at the time of the reinjection.
>
> If processing in reaction to a change in a reference is necessary,
> then setter injection should be used, with code in the setter
method
> that does the proper processing in reaction to a change.
>
> Components with any scope other than the composite scope MUST NOT
> have references reinjected. If an operation is called on a
> reference where the target of that reference is no longer valid,
> then InvalidServiceException MUST be thrown.
>
> In cases where changes to a reference are not valid, the reference
> as accessed through the component context also MUST NOT change.
> More precisely, the ComponentContext.getService() and
> getServiceReference() methods MUST return the same reference target
> as would be accessed through injection. However, the
> ServiceReference that is returned by getServiceReference() never
> changes its target. If the wiring of a composite component causes
a
> reference to be reinjected, any ServiceReference object that was
> acquired before the reinjection will still correspond to the target
> prior to the change. If the target service for a ServiceReference
> ever becomes invalid, then attempts to call business methods
through
> that ServiceReference MUST throw InvalidServiceException.
>
> The rules for reference reinjection also apply to references with a
> 0..N or 1..N. This means that in the cases listed above where
> reference reinjection is not allowed, the array or Collection for
> the reference MUST NOT change their contents. In cases where the
> contents of a reference collection MAY change, then for references
> that use setter injection, the setter method MUST be called for any
> change to the contents. The injected collection MAY be the same
> collection object as is currently used by the component, but with
> some change to its contents.
>
> Michael
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. You may a link to this group and 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]