RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 - Dependency reinjection

["Reza Shafii" <rshafii@bea.com>]

Mike,
 
Sorry for not being clear. I did not mean to imply that my suggestion was your proposoal. I was referring to your idea of annotation based reinjection while suggesting that we should stick to the previously discussed conditions for this to occur.
 
Regards,
 
Reza

________________________________

From: Mike Edwards [mailto:mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Tue 08/01/2008 12:42 AM
To: OASIS Java
Subject: RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 4 - Dependency reinjection



Reza, 

I have one specific comment to make here - done inline.... 

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 

"Reza Shafii" <rshafii@bea.com> wrote on 07/01/2008 21:07:32:

> 
> Another option would be to use Mike's idea of a "reinject" parameter on
> @Reference to also derive the behavior of the getServiceReference()
> method. If reinject="true" reinjection should occur and subsequent
> invocations of getServiceReference() would lead to an object referencing
> the new target.  If reinject="false", reinjection should not occur and
> subsequent invocations of getServiceReference() would lead to the target
> prior to rewiring. 
> 
> I am also thinking that the reinject=true value would only be valid if
> the conditions previously discussed apply (i.e. scope is composite,
> conversational interfaces must not be active, and the reference is field
> based or setter based). This would change the table as attached. 

This was NOT my proposal. 

My proposal is that IF reinject=true is set, then reinjection occurs for ANY 
scope of component.  My thinking here is that, since by default no reinjection 
occurs, and that the programmer has to do something active to get reinjection 
to occur, then it is reasonable to allow reinjection for any and all scopes 
- at the request of the programmer.  This gets rid of those rules that you 
list above. 

The thinking here is that IF you care about reinjection, then you will take 
the trouble to think through what it means to change the reference you are 
using (or perhaps, writers of material about SCA will take the trouble to 
tell you....). 


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Reza




________________________________





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 









Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.