You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Ignacio Silva-Lepe <is...@gmail.com> on 2006/12/20 23:04:10 UTC
IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect and @ConversationID
I noticed that IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect uses
getAllPublicAndProtectedFields to obtain the fields on
which to invoke each processor's visitField. However,
the C&I spec seems to imply that it should be possible
to inject a conversation id (the spec still refers to it as
@SessionID but that's another matter) into a private
field.
Should IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect be changed
or is the spec wrong in its assumption?
Re: IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect and @ConversationID
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Dec 21, 2006, at 7:37 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
>
>> I noticed that IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect uses
>> getAllPublicAndProtectedFields to obtain the fields on
>> which to invoke each processor's visitField. However,
>> the C&I spec seems to imply that it should be possible
>> to inject a conversation id (the spec still refers to it as
>> @SessionID but that's another matter) into a private
>> field.
> That's a bug in the spec. We should probably file a JIRA at the
> OSOA web site.
>
I should say, both are bugs in the spec. SessionID should be
"ConversationID" and fields should be protected or public. I've
already changed the "SessionID" naming in the latest version but we
should file the other JIRA related to field visibility so it does not
get lost.
Jim
> Jim
>
>> Should IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect be changed
>> or is the spec wrong in its assumption?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect and @ConversationID
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Dec 20, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
> I noticed that IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect uses
> getAllPublicAndProtectedFields to obtain the fields on
> which to invoke each processor's visitField. However,
> the C&I spec seems to imply that it should be possible
> to inject a conversation id (the spec still refers to it as
> @SessionID but that's another matter) into a private
> field.
That's a bug in the spec. We should probably file a JIRA at the OSOA
web site.
Jim
> Should IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect be changed
> or is the spec wrong in its assumption?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect and @ConversationID
Posted by Ignacio Silva-Lepe <is...@gmail.com>.
Sure, I'm just not sure about the details. At the JIRA site there does
not seem to be an OSOA-related project that I can find. And at the
OSOA site (www.osoa.org), there does not seem to be a away to
submit a JIRA. Needless to say, I have not done this before :-)
On 12/22/06, Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
>
> > I noticed that IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect uses
> > getAllPublicAndProtectedFields to obtain the fields on
> > which to invoke each processor's visitField. However,
> > the C&I spec seems to imply that it should be possible
> > to inject a conversation id (the spec still refers to it as
> > @SessionID but that's another matter) into a private
> > field.
> I've already changed @SessionID in the latest version of the spec.
> The other issue regarding private fields is a bug in the spec - it
> should be protected or public. Could you file a JIRA at the OSOA site
> so we don't loose track of that?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
> > Should IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect be changed
> > or is the spec wrong in its assumption?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect and @ConversationID
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Dec 20, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
> I noticed that IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect uses
> getAllPublicAndProtectedFields to obtain the fields on
> which to invoke each processor's visitField. However,
> the C&I spec seems to imply that it should be possible
> to inject a conversation id (the spec still refers to it as
> @SessionID but that's another matter) into a private
> field.
I've already changed @SessionID in the latest version of the spec.
The other issue regarding private fields is a bug in the spec - it
should be protected or public. Could you file a JIRA at the OSOA site
so we don't loose track of that?
Thanks,
Jim
> Should IntrospectionRegistryImpl.introspect be changed
> or is the spec wrong in its assumption?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org