-----Original Message----- From: Simon Nash [mailto:NA...@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:46 AM To: sca...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 3 - Local services expose implementation classes as their type

I'm OK with most of this but I don't agree with the paragraph starting 2). The value of having @Local is that it makes the definition of local services explicit, either by @Service or @Local. I don't think services

should ever be generated from interfaces without an explicit indication that this was intended.

Simon

Simon C. Nash, IBM Distinguished Engineer Member of the IBM Academy of Technology Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999

"Michael Rowley" <mrow...@bea.com> 18/10/2007 19:48

To "Michael Rowley" <mrow...@bea.com>, <sca...@lists.oasis-open.org> cc

Subject RE: [sca-j] ISSUE 3 - Local services expose implementation classes as their type

PROPOSAL:

Introduce a new interface annotation called @Local. If a component implementation implements an interface that has been marked as @Local, then the component type will include a service whose type is that (non-remotable) interface. In this way, the @Local annotation is similar to the @Remotable annotation, but without implying remote-call semantics.

The rules for generating services for a class that does not include the @Service annotation are the following:

1) If the class implements interfaces, generate services for each implemented interface that has been marked as either @Remotable or @Local, where the type of the service is that interface. Any implemented interfaces that have not been marked as either @Remotable or @Local do not have services generated for them.

2) If none of the interfaces implemented by the class has been marked as

@Remotable or @Local, then generate a service for each implemented interface that is not a ?marker interface? (i.e. an interface with no methods, like Serializable).

3) If the class implements no interfaces, then it offers a single service whose type is that class.

Michael

From: Barack, Ron [mailto:ron....@sap.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 5:27 AM To: sca...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [sca-j] ISSUE LOGGED: JAVA-3: Local services expose implementation classes as their type

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-3

Von: Michael Rowley [mailto:mrow...@bea.com] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. September 2007 00:22 An: sca...@lists.oasis-open.org Betreff: [sca-j] NEW ISSUE: Local services expose implementation classes

as their type

TARGET: Java Common Annotations and APIs specification Java Component Implementation Specification Section titled: ?Local and Remotable Services?

DESCRIPTION:

Currently, this section states the following:

If an implementation class has implemented interfaces that are not decorated with an @Remotable annotation, the class is considered to implement a single local service whose type is defined by the class.

This is unfortunate, since the extremely common pattern of:

class FooImpl implements Foo {}

Will result in a component that offers a service whose type is FooImpl (assuming that Foo hasn?t been marked as @Remotable).

It should be possible for this pattern to result in a service whose type

is the Foo interface.

PROPOSAL:

Introduce a new interface annotation called @Local. If a component implementation implements an interface that has been marked as @Local, then the component type will include a service whose type is that interface.

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