[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-j] When more than one interface with the same unqualified nameused in the @Service annotation
What prompted me to raise this issue is "Section 5.1.2 The ComponentType of
an Unaltered Session Bean in Java EE Integration Specification v1.0" that
talks about the services computed from a session bean. I did not want to
raise an issue in sca-j-jee (which I will be doing later) even before the
first meeting of of the sub committee :o). There are other places in the
Java Component Implementation Specification Version 1.1 draft (for e.g.
Sec 2.3 Introspecting services offered by a Java implementation) and other
specifications too that need to be considered for a similar change. I see
that using the fully qualified class/interface name for the service name is
the simplest solution (may not be the best considering it is not compatible
with v1.0 spec).
++Vamsi
Simon Nash
<NASH@uk.ibm.com>
To
13/08/2008 19:24 sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject
Re: [sca-j] When more than one
interface with the same unqualified
name used in the @Service
annotation
Mike,
There is a third option:
- Make this an error case. One of the Java interfaces needs to be renamed
to resolve the conflict.
My preference is option 3. I don't like option 2. I could live with
option 1.
Note that options 1 and 3 are not incompatible. Even if we go for option
1, we have to say what happens if the alias name isn't specified. In this
case I believe the result should be option 3, not option 2.
Simon
Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
13/08/2008 14:22 To
sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject
Re: [sca-j] When more than one
interface with the same
unqualified name used in the
@Service annotation
Vamsi,
You have found a hole in the specifications, I think.
I am not in favour of having the whole qualified interface class name used
as the service name.
I suggest the following set of changes - I'm interested in see folks'
reactions to these suggestions
before I raise a formal Issue:
- Permit the @Service annotation to provide a name for the service,
independent of the name of the
interface class (I'm surprised that we don't have this already)
- Where the default name is being used, derived from the name of the
interface class, if two services
end up with the same name, I suggest appending "_n" to the end of the name
for the 2nd and subsequent
services with the same name, where "n" is a number that starts with 1 and
increments by 1.
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: C Vamsi <vamsic007@in.ibm.com>
To: sca-j@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 13/08/2008 13:01
Subjec [sca-j] When more than one interface with the same unqualified
t: name used in the @Service annotation
sca-javaci-draft-20070926.doc
Java Component Implementation Specification Version 1.1 draft - Section -
2.1:
The service name computed from @Service annotation is the unqualified name
of the class/interface specified in the annotation. What happens when
there is more than one interface with the same unqualified name (as given
in the example below) used in the @Service annotation?
package mypkg1;
public interface HelloService {
String hello1(String msg);
}
package mypkg2;
public interface HelloService {
String hello2(String msg);
}
@Service(interfaces = {mypkg1.HelloService.class,
mypkg2.HelloService.class})
public HelloServiceImpl implements mypkg1.HelloService, mypkg2.HelloService
{
public String hello1(String msg) {
return "hello1 " + msg;
}
public String hello2(String msg) {
return "hello2 " + msg;
}
}
Is it an error? Should the service name include package name of the
interface/class as well?
++Vamsi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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]