sca-j message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: ISSUE 39: Incorrect example in Java Component Implementation Spec v1.00 - Sec 1.2.4
- From: "Barack, Ron" <ron.barack@sap.com>
- To: "Simon Nash" <NASH@uk.ibm.com>, <sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 14:42:53 +0200
I'm also changing the subject line in the
thread.
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]