sca-j message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Incorrect example in Java Component ImplementationSpec v1.00 - Sec 1.2.4
- From: Simon Nash <NASH@uk.ibm.com>
- To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 12:50:17 +0100
Vamsi,
I'm glad we are agreed that this usage
is valid. I think it's best to leave the example as is (apart from
fixing the Impl2 error), to show that it is possible to mix unannotated
and annotated properties in this way. I'd be OK with adding brief
comments to the example to clarify this. For example:
296 /** Additional property set through a method */
297 public class Impl4 {
298 public String someProperty; // property specified in component
definition
299 public SomeService someReference; // reference specified in component
definition
300 public Impl4(String a, SomeService b) {...}
301 @Property public void setAnotherProperty(int x) {...}
302 }
Simon
Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
08/05/2008 12:22
|
To
| Simon Nash/UK/IBM@IBMGB
|
cc
| sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
|
Subject
| Re: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Incorrect example
in Java Component Implementation Spec v1.00 - Sec 1.2.4 |
|
Hi Simon,
I agree with you and I do not see any problem with the text under section
8.12. The idea behind my raising this issue is that if we get rid
of the
@Property annotation in line 301 (which is line 312 under Sec 5 in
sca-javaci-draft-20070926.doc): "@Property public void
setAnotherProperty(int x) {...}" then the example will be fine and
we will
not need any qualifier like "as long as either the implementation's
componentType or the SCDL component configuration specifies a property
called someProperty".
I missed to detect that incorrect Impl2 may be because I got more attached
to the @Property annotation :o)
++Vamsi
Simon Nash
<NASH@uk.ibm.com>
To
08/05/2008 16:27
sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject
Re: [sca-j]
NEW ISSUE: Incorrect
example
in Java Component
Implementation
Spec v1.00 - Sec
1.2.4
Vamsi,
The section number given in the chat log minutes from last week's call
was
incorrect. The correct section is Section 8.12 of the Java Common
Annotations and APIs spec. This says the following:
1172 The @Property annotation may be used on protected or public fields
and
on setter methods or on
1173 a constructor method.
1174 Properties may also be injected via public setter methods even when
the @Property annotation is
1175 not present. However, the @Property annotation must be used in order
to inject a property onto a
1176 non-public field. In the case where there is no @Property annotation,
the name of the property is
1177 the same as the name of the field or setter.
The above text says nothing about this only applying if no annotations
are
present. So this example should be fine as long as either the
implementation's componentType or the SCDL component configuration
specifies a property called someProperty.
When looking at the example code, I noticed a different problem. The
constructor should be Impl4 not Impl2.
Simon
Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
C Vamsi
<vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
To
28/04/2008 20:17
sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject
[sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Incorrect
example in Java Component
Implementation Spec v1.00 -
Sec 1.2.4
DESCRIPTION:
Java Component Implementation Specification v1.00 - Sec 1.2.4 - Lines 296
to 302:
296 /** Additional property set through a method */
297 public class Impl4 {
298 public String someProperty;
299 public SomeService someReference;
300 public Impl2(String a, SomeService b) {...}
301 @Property public void setAnotherProperty(int x) {...}
302 }
In this example, the presence of @Property annotation on
setAnotherProperty() results in someProperty and someReference not make
into the componentType as property and reference respectively. Only
after
removing the @Property annotation, the implementation becomes unannotated
and someProperty & anotherProperty will be computed as properties;
someReference will be computed as a reference as per section 1.2.7.
PROPOSAL: Remove @Property from line 301 so that the line reads "public
void setAnotherProperty(int x) {...}"
See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200804/msg00050.html
++Vamsi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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]