You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> on 2007/09/05 18:37:20 UTC
Re: implementation.osgi and SCA annotations
Rajini,
If this goes into 1.0, can you please update Java user doc[1]?
Thanks,
Haleh
[1]:http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-user-guide.html
On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Raymond,
>
> The classes annotated in the bundle should be the classes used to
> implement
> OSGi services. @Property for example, can be used to inject properties
> only
> if the the annotation is in the class or superclass of the object
> implementing an OSGi service.
>
> @Scope (and some of the other annotations which are not tied to an object
> instance) can be specified in any class in the bundle, but the class
> should
> be specified in <implementation.osgi/> for SCA to know that the class
> should
> be introspected.
>
> The classes that get introspected are the classes specified in <
> implementation.osgi/> and the classes of the service objects.
>
>
> Thank you...
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajini
>
>
> On 8/30/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > What java classes do you expect to be annotated with SCA annotations in
> > the
> > OSGi bundle?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Raymond
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Rajini Sivaram" <ra...@googlemail.com>
> > To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>; <an...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:05 AM
> > Subject: Re: implementation.osgi and SCA annotations
> >
> >
> > > Ant,
> > >
> > > The defaults used by implementation.osgi match the default behaviour
> of
> > > OSGi
> > > bundles. Scope is set to COMPOSITE, remotable interfaces use
> > > pass-by-value,
> > > and properties can only be set/read using standard OSGi mechanisms.
> The
> > > attributes provided in <implementation.osgi/> which are being replaced
> > by
> > > annotations provide support for SCA options in OSGi bundles, but these
> > > require changes to the bundle anyway. So it makes sense to add these
> > > additional properties in a way that is consistent with SCA, rather
> than
> > > add
> > > something which is neither consistent with OSGi nor SCA.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> > > On 8/30/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If thats the way to go then doing it now would be better than after
> 1.0
> > >> is
> > >> out.
> > >>
> > >> But why can't the SCDL attributes be kept as well as supporting
> > >> annotations
> > >> and doesn't supporting both then mean non-SCA aware OSGi bundles can
> > >> still
> > >> be used with Tuscany? (not particularly concerned about this,would
> just
> > >> like
> > >> to understand)
> > >>
> > >> ...ant
> > >>
> > >> On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Ant,
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you.
> > >> >
> > >> > I was planning to remove the support for <implementation.osgi/>
> > >> > attributes,
> > >> > making it not backward compatible. That was one of the reasons I
> > wanted
> > >> to
> > >> > introduce the change before 1.0. Is that a problem?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thank you...
> > >> >
> > >> > Regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > Rajini
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 8/30/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 8/29/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Hello,
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > We would like to start supporting SCA annotations in
> > implementation
> > >> > > > classes
> > >> > > > used inside OSGi bundles to make implementation.osgi consistent
> > >> > > > with
> > >> > > > implementation.java.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > In the current implementation, SCA annotations are only
> supported
> > >> for
> > >> > > > annotations used in interfaces, since we were keen on
> supporting
> > >> > > existing
> > >> > > > OSGi bundles without any change. This meant that additional SCA
> > >> > > properties
> > >> > > > like @AllowsPassByReference had to be supported through
> > additional
> > >> > > > attributes on the <implementation.osgi/> element. But since
> these
> > >> > > > properties
> > >> > > > do not have an OSGi equivalent, they cannot be used with
> existing
> > >> OSGi
> > >> > > > bundles, and for new implementations which support these
> > >> > > > properties,
> > >> > we
> > >> > > > would like to support SCA annotations to make the OSGi
> > >> implementation
> > >> > > > consistent with the Java implementation.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > This is a fairly big change in implementation.osgi, and I would
> > >> > > > like
> > >> > > your
> > >> > > > views on whether this is a good time to make the change, so
> that
> > >> > > > the implementation will reflect the long-term strategy in the
> > next
> > >> > > > release.
> > >> > > > I can submit a patch early next week if it can be integrated
> > before
> > >> > the
> > >> > > > release.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If you think it can be done in time then I think you should go
> for
> > >> > > it,
> > >> > i'd
> > >> > > commit any patches for you. The next release is 1.0 with the
> > branch
> > >> for
> > >> > > that being taken around the 14th of September. If you can get
> > patches
> > >> > > submitted by at least a few days before then and the testcases
> and
> > >> > samples
> > >> > > are working after the changes then I can't see any problem with
> > going
> > >> > > ahead
> > >> > > now.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Just to confirm one thing, are the changes going to be backward
> > >> > > compatible,
> > >> > > i.e. would SCDL that works today keep on working after the
> changes
> > >> > > are
> > >> > > done?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ...ant
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: implementation.osgi and SCA annotations
Posted by haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com>.
Everyone has access to Tuscany wiki. I'll move the wiki page you add to the
website. Thanks.
On 9/6/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Haleh,
>
> Will do (I probably dont have access, but I will write the text and submit
> it).
>
>
> Thank you...
>
> Regards,
>
> Rajini
>
> On 9/5/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Rajini,
> > If this goes into 1.0, can you please update Java user doc[1]?
> > Thanks,
> > Haleh
> >
> > [1]:http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-user-guide.html
> >
> > On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Raymond,
> > >
> > > The classes annotated in the bundle should be the classes used to
> > > implement
> > > OSGi services. @Property for example, can be used to inject properties
> > > only
> > > if the the annotation is in the class or superclass of the object
> > > implementing an OSGi service.
> > >
> > > @Scope (and some of the other annotations which are not tied to an
> > object
> > > instance) can be specified in any class in the bundle, but the class
> > > should
> > > be specified in <implementation.osgi/> for SCA to know that the class
> > > should
> > > be introspected.
> > >
> > > The classes that get introspected are the classes specified in <
> > > implementation.osgi/> and the classes of the service objects.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you...
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Rajini
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/30/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > What java classes do you expect to be annotated with SCA annotations
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > OSGi bundle?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Raymond
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Rajini Sivaram" <ra...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>; <an...@apache.org>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:05 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: implementation.osgi and SCA annotations
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ant,
> > > > >
> > > > > The defaults used by implementation.osgi match the default
> behaviour
> > > of
> > > > > OSGi
> > > > > bundles. Scope is set to COMPOSITE, remotable interfaces use
> > > > > pass-by-value,
> > > > > and properties can only be set/read using standard OSGi
> mechanisms.
> > > The
> > > > > attributes provided in <implementation.osgi/> which are being
> > replaced
> > > > by
> > > > > annotations provide support for SCA options in OSGi bundles, but
> > these
> > > > > require changes to the bundle anyway. So it makes sense to add
> these
> > > > > additional properties in a way that is consistent with SCA, rather
> > > than
> > > > > add
> > > > > something which is neither consistent with OSGi nor SCA.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you...
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Rajini
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/30/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If thats the way to go then doing it now would be better than
> after
> > > 1.0
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> out.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But why can't the SCDL attributes be kept as well as supporting
> > > > >> annotations
> > > > >> and doesn't supporting both then mean non-SCA aware OSGi bundles
> > can
> > > > >> still
> > > > >> be used with Tuscany? (not particularly concerned about
> this,would
> > > just
> > > > >> like
> > > > >> to understand)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ...ant
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Ant,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thank you.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I was planning to remove the support for <implementation.osgi/>
> > > > >> > attributes,
> > > > >> > making it not backward compatible. That was one of the reasons
> I
> > > > wanted
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > introduce the change before 1.0. Is that a problem?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Thank you...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Regards,
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Rajini
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On 8/30/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On 8/29/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Hello,
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > We would like to start supporting SCA annotations in
> > > > implementation
> > > > >> > > > classes
> > > > >> > > > used inside OSGi bundles to make
> implementation.osgiconsistent
> > > > >> > > > with
> > > > >> > > > implementation.java.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > In the current implementation, SCA annotations are only
> > > supported
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > annotations used in interfaces, since we were keen on
> > > supporting
> > > > >> > > existing
> > > > >> > > > OSGi bundles without any change. This meant that additional
> > SCA
> > > > >> > > properties
> > > > >> > > > like @AllowsPassByReference had to be supported through
> > > > additional
> > > > >> > > > attributes on the <implementation.osgi/> element. But since
> > > these
> > > > >> > > > properties
> > > > >> > > > do not have an OSGi equivalent, they cannot be used with
> > > existing
> > > > >> OSGi
> > > > >> > > > bundles, and for new implementations which support these
> > > > >> > > > properties,
> > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > > > would like to support SCA annotations to make the OSGi
> > > > >> implementation
> > > > >> > > > consistent with the Java implementation.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > This is a fairly big change in implementation.osgi, and I
> > would
> > > > >> > > > like
> > > > >> > > your
> > > > >> > > > views on whether this is a good time to make the change, so
> > > that
> > > > >> > > > the implementation will reflect the long-term strategy in
> the
> > > > next
> > > > >> > > > release.
> > > > >> > > > I can submit a patch early next week if it can be
> integrated
> > > > before
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > release.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > If you think it can be done in time then I think you should
> go
> > > for
> > > > >> > > it,
> > > > >> > i'd
> > > > >> > > commit any patches for you. The next release is 1.0 with the
> > > > branch
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > that being taken around the 14th of September. If you can get
> > > > patches
> > > > >> > > submitted by at least a few days before then and the
> testcases
> > > and
> > > > >> > samples
> > > > >> > > are working after the changes then I can't see any problem
> with
> > > > going
> > > > >> > > ahead
> > > > >> > > now.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Just to confirm one thing, are the changes going to be
> backward
> > > > >> > > compatible,
> > > > >> > > i.e. would SCDL that works today keep on working after the
> > > changes
> > > > >> > > are
> > > > >> > > done?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > ...ant
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: implementation.osgi and SCA annotations
Posted by Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com>.
Haleh,
Will do (I probably dont have access, but I will write the text and submit
it).
Thank you...
Regards,
Rajini
On 9/5/07, haleh mahbod <hm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rajini,
> If this goes into 1.0, can you please update Java user doc[1]?
> Thanks,
> Haleh
>
> [1]:http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-user-guide.html
>
> On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Raymond,
> >
> > The classes annotated in the bundle should be the classes used to
> > implement
> > OSGi services. @Property for example, can be used to inject properties
> > only
> > if the the annotation is in the class or superclass of the object
> > implementing an OSGi service.
> >
> > @Scope (and some of the other annotations which are not tied to an
> object
> > instance) can be specified in any class in the bundle, but the class
> > should
> > be specified in <implementation.osgi/> for SCA to know that the class
> > should
> > be introspected.
> >
> > The classes that get introspected are the classes specified in <
> > implementation.osgi/> and the classes of the service objects.
> >
> >
> > Thank you...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rajini
> >
> >
> > On 8/30/07, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > What java classes do you expect to be annotated with SCA annotations
> in
> > > the
> > > OSGi bundle?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Raymond
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Rajini Sivaram" <ra...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>; <an...@apache.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:05 AM
> > > Subject: Re: implementation.osgi and SCA annotations
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ant,
> > > >
> > > > The defaults used by implementation.osgi match the default behaviour
> > of
> > > > OSGi
> > > > bundles. Scope is set to COMPOSITE, remotable interfaces use
> > > > pass-by-value,
> > > > and properties can only be set/read using standard OSGi mechanisms.
> > The
> > > > attributes provided in <implementation.osgi/> which are being
> replaced
> > > by
> > > > annotations provide support for SCA options in OSGi bundles, but
> these
> > > > require changes to the bundle anyway. So it makes sense to add these
> > > > additional properties in a way that is consistent with SCA, rather
> > than
> > > > add
> > > > something which is neither consistent with OSGi nor SCA.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you...
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Rajini
> > > >
> > > > On 8/30/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> If thats the way to go then doing it now would be better than after
> > 1.0
> > > >> is
> > > >> out.
> > > >>
> > > >> But why can't the SCDL attributes be kept as well as supporting
> > > >> annotations
> > > >> and doesn't supporting both then mean non-SCA aware OSGi bundles
> can
> > > >> still
> > > >> be used with Tuscany? (not particularly concerned about this,would
> > just
> > > >> like
> > > >> to understand)
> > > >>
> > > >> ...ant
> > > >>
> > > >> On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Ant,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thank you.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I was planning to remove the support for <implementation.osgi/>
> > > >> > attributes,
> > > >> > making it not backward compatible. That was one of the reasons I
> > > wanted
> > > >> to
> > > >> > introduce the change before 1.0. Is that a problem?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thank you...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Regards,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Rajini
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 8/30/07, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 8/29/07, Rajini Sivaram <ra...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Hello,
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > We would like to start supporting SCA annotations in
> > > implementation
> > > >> > > > classes
> > > >> > > > used inside OSGi bundles to make implementation.osgiconsistent
> > > >> > > > with
> > > >> > > > implementation.java.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > In the current implementation, SCA annotations are only
> > supported
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > > annotations used in interfaces, since we were keen on
> > supporting
> > > >> > > existing
> > > >> > > > OSGi bundles without any change. This meant that additional
> SCA
> > > >> > > properties
> > > >> > > > like @AllowsPassByReference had to be supported through
> > > additional
> > > >> > > > attributes on the <implementation.osgi/> element. But since
> > these
> > > >> > > > properties
> > > >> > > > do not have an OSGi equivalent, they cannot be used with
> > existing
> > > >> OSGi
> > > >> > > > bundles, and for new implementations which support these
> > > >> > > > properties,
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > > would like to support SCA annotations to make the OSGi
> > > >> implementation
> > > >> > > > consistent with the Java implementation.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > This is a fairly big change in implementation.osgi, and I
> would
> > > >> > > > like
> > > >> > > your
> > > >> > > > views on whether this is a good time to make the change, so
> > that
> > > >> > > > the implementation will reflect the long-term strategy in the
> > > next
> > > >> > > > release.
> > > >> > > > I can submit a patch early next week if it can be integrated
> > > before
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > > release.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > If you think it can be done in time then I think you should go
> > for
> > > >> > > it,
> > > >> > i'd
> > > >> > > commit any patches for you. The next release is 1.0 with the
> > > branch
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > that being taken around the 14th of September. If you can get
> > > patches
> > > >> > > submitted by at least a few days before then and the testcases
> > and
> > > >> > samples
> > > >> > > are working after the changes then I can't see any problem with
> > > going
> > > >> > > ahead
> > > >> > > now.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Just to confirm one thing, are the changes going to be backward
> > > >> > > compatible,
> > > >> > > i.e. would SCDL that works today keep on working after the
> > changes
> > > >> > > are
> > > >> > > done?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > ...ant
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>