You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@felix.apache.org by Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> on 2013/11/02 14:12:00 UTC
SCR @Reference on fields?
Hi Felix users,
I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the OSGi standard @Reference annotation.
I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep a reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code in the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For example:
int value;
private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
value = s.getValue();
}
With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference to the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be null.
Thanks, Dan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>.
Thanks a lot,
That’s good to know.
Dan.
On 2 Nov 2013, at 16:03, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> yes you can use the OSGi annotations with the scr plugin, you need to add
> this dependency to your project:
> <groupId>org.apache.felix</groupId>
> <artifactId>org.apache.felix.scr.ds-annotations</artifactId>
> <version>1.2.4</version>
>
> Carsten
>
>
> 2013/11/2 Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
>
>> Hi Carsten,
>> Thanks a lot for your reply.
>>
>> Are you saying that one can use the OSGi annotations with the
>> Maven-SCR-Plugin? I thought I tried this initially, without success - but
>> thinking about it, I may have been misled because maven complained I didn’t
>> have the “AnnotationProcessor” (or similar) when I didn’t have the
>> scr.annotations bundle as a dependency - maybe I just assumed that having
>> included the annotations bundle, those were the annotations I should be
>> using.
>>
>> If this is the case, no need for an feature request I think.
>>
>> Best, Dan.
>>
>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 15:12, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> as Robert wrote, the scr annotations from the Apache Felix project
>> predate
>>> the annotations from the spec. Regardless of which annotations you use,
>> the
>>> result is compliant to the DS specification: a descriptor XML is
>> generated
>>> containing the references and for each reference the methods for bind and
>>> unbind are listed and these methods must exist in the contained class.
>>> While the Reference annotations from the OSGi spec is more pure in the
>>> sense that you annotate the bind method, the one from Apache Felix is
>> more
>>> convenient at least for unnary references as you just annotate the field
>>> and the methods are generated for you.
>>> If you want to mimic the same behaviour, you have to use a Reference
>>> annotation on the class as explained by Robert as well.
>>> We could add support for annotation a method like the OSGi annotations
>> do,
>>> you might want to create a feature request issue for this
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Carsten
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/11/2 Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks again Robert,
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
>>>>>> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That occurred to me, but the naming was so similar that I ignored it.
>>>> SCR has been very inspirational then!
>>>>> In that case, would it be an idea to extend the annotation’s target to
>>>> methods as well as fields?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe. Hopefully SCR devs can chime in regarding this design decision.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
>>>>>> rather than a field?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my case, the value must be computed and retrieved from an external
>>>> source (the first time) but can then be cached and expected not to
>> change,
>>>> which is why I have a service to provide it. I wonder how I could
>> achieve
>>>> that with configuration?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I mean was writing something like ( not tested )
>>>>
>>>> @Reference(name="myValue", interfaceReference = MyValue.class)
>>>> @Component
>>>> public class MyComp {
>>>>
>>>> protected void bindMyValue(MyValue val) { /* whatever */ }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The only advantage of declaring a Reference on a field is that you
>>>> don't have to declare the name and interfaceReference properties,
>>>> which are inferred from the field. For more details, see [1].
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>> [1]:
>>>>
>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-maven-scr-plugin/scr-annotations.html#reference
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>> Dan.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:57, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply. I was not actually aware the plugin generated
>>>> the methods, that’s very helpful!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have implemented the bind method in such a manner, but am forced to
>>>> have a pointless (and potentially destructively misleading) field that I
>>>> can’t prevent other people from using and therefore have to document
>> that
>>>> it’s not to be used or put effort into writing the class to ensure it’s
>>>> null and thread safe on the reference - a task that would be implicit if
>>>> the field never existed. To illustrate, when all is well in my class I
>> have
>>>> to have a warning that the field is unused, whereas what I need is a
>>>> warning if it is!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
>>>>>> rather than a field? You might need to use a holder @Properties
>>>>>> annotation if you have more than one annotation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am curious as to the rationale of it being a field annotation
>> rather
>>>> than a method (or method + field), as it must have been a conscious
>> choice
>>>> to deviate from the way the OSGi spec does it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
>>>>>> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, Dan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:43, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Felix users,
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are
>>>> valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the
>> OSGi
>>>> standard @Reference annotation.
>>>>>>>>> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep
>> a
>>>> reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code
>> in
>>>> the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For
>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int value;
>>>>>>>>> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
>>>>>>>>> value = s.getValue();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference
>> to
>>>> the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without
>>>> the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service
>>>> arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be
>> null.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates
>> a
>>>>>>>> 'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
>>>>>>>> class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
>>>>>>>> just like in your snippet above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carsten Ziegeler
>>> cziegeler@apache.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Hi Dan,
yes you can use the OSGi annotations with the scr plugin, you need to add
this dependency to your project:
<groupId>org.apache.felix</groupId>
<artifactId>org.apache.felix.scr.ds-annotations</artifactId>
<version>1.2.4</version>
Carsten
2013/11/2 Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
> Hi Carsten,
> Thanks a lot for your reply.
>
> Are you saying that one can use the OSGi annotations with the
> Maven-SCR-Plugin? I thought I tried this initially, without success - but
> thinking about it, I may have been misled because maven complained I didn’t
> have the “AnnotationProcessor” (or similar) when I didn’t have the
> scr.annotations bundle as a dependency - maybe I just assumed that having
> included the annotations bundle, those were the annotations I should be
> using.
>
> If this is the case, no need for an feature request I think.
>
> Best, Dan.
>
> On 2 Nov 2013, at 15:12, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > as Robert wrote, the scr annotations from the Apache Felix project
> predate
> > the annotations from the spec. Regardless of which annotations you use,
> the
> > result is compliant to the DS specification: a descriptor XML is
> generated
> > containing the references and for each reference the methods for bind and
> > unbind are listed and these methods must exist in the contained class.
> > While the Reference annotations from the OSGi spec is more pure in the
> > sense that you annotate the bind method, the one from Apache Felix is
> more
> > convenient at least for unnary references as you just annotate the field
> > and the methods are generated for you.
> > If you want to mimic the same behaviour, you have to use a Reference
> > annotation on the class as explained by Robert as well.
> > We could add support for annotation a method like the OSGi annotations
> do,
> > you might want to create a feature request issue for this
> >
> > Regards
> > Carsten
> >
> >
> > 2013/11/2 Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>
> >
> >> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Thanks again Robert,
> >>>
> >>>> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
> >>>> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> That occurred to me, but the naming was so similar that I ignored it.
> >> SCR has been very inspirational then!
> >>> In that case, would it be an idea to extend the annotation’s target to
> >> methods as well as fields?
> >>
> >> Maybe. Hopefully SCR devs can chime in regarding this design decision.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
> >>>> rather than a field?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In my case, the value must be computed and retrieved from an external
> >> source (the first time) but can then be cached and expected not to
> change,
> >> which is why I have a service to provide it. I wonder how I could
> achieve
> >> that with configuration?
> >>
> >>
> >> What I mean was writing something like ( not tested )
> >>
> >> @Reference(name="myValue", interfaceReference = MyValue.class)
> >> @Component
> >> public class MyComp {
> >>
> >> protected void bindMyValue(MyValue val) { /* whatever */ }
> >> }
> >>
> >> The only advantage of declaring a Reference on a field is that you
> >> don't have to declare the name and interfaceReference properties,
> >> which are inferred from the field. For more details, see [1].
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >>
> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-maven-scr-plugin/scr-annotations.html#reference
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Many thanks,
> >>> Dan.
> >>>
> >>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:57, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Robert,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for your reply. I was not actually aware the plugin generated
> >> the methods, that’s very helpful!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have implemented the bind method in such a manner, but am forced to
> >> have a pointless (and potentially destructively misleading) field that I
> >> can’t prevent other people from using and therefore have to document
> that
> >> it’s not to be used or put effort into writing the class to ensure it’s
> >> null and thread safe on the reference - a task that would be implicit if
> >> the field never existed. To illustrate, when all is well in my class I
> have
> >> to have a warning that the field is unused, whereas what I need is a
> >> warning if it is!
> >>>>
> >>>> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
> >>>> rather than a field? You might need to use a holder @Properties
> >>>> annotation if you have more than one annotation.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am curious as to the rationale of it being a field annotation
> rather
> >> than a method (or method + field), as it must have been a conscious
> choice
> >> to deviate from the way the OSGi spec does it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
> >>>> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Robert
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best, Dan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:43, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Dan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Felix users,
> >>>>>>> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are
> >> valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the
> OSGi
> >> standard @Reference annotation.
> >>>>>>> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep
> a
> >> reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code
> in
> >> the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For
> >> example:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> int value;
> >>>>>>> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
> >>>>>>> value = s.getValue();
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference
> to
> >> the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without
> >> the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service
> >> arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be
> null.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates
> a
> >>>>>> 'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
> >>>>>> class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
> >>>>>> just like in your snippet above.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Robert
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks, Dan.
> >>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carsten Ziegeler
> > cziegeler@apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>.
Hi Carsten,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Are you saying that one can use the OSGi annotations with the Maven-SCR-Plugin? I thought I tried this initially, without success - but thinking about it, I may have been misled because maven complained I didn’t have the “AnnotationProcessor” (or similar) when I didn’t have the scr.annotations bundle as a dependency - maybe I just assumed that having included the annotations bundle, those were the annotations I should be using.
If this is the case, no need for an feature request I think.
Best, Dan.
On 2 Nov 2013, at 15:12, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as Robert wrote, the scr annotations from the Apache Felix project predate
> the annotations from the spec. Regardless of which annotations you use, the
> result is compliant to the DS specification: a descriptor XML is generated
> containing the references and for each reference the methods for bind and
> unbind are listed and these methods must exist in the contained class.
> While the Reference annotations from the OSGi spec is more pure in the
> sense that you annotate the bind method, the one from Apache Felix is more
> convenient at least for unnary references as you just annotate the field
> and the methods are generated for you.
> If you want to mimic the same behaviour, you have to use a Reference
> annotation on the class as explained by Robert as well.
> We could add support for annotation a method like the OSGi annotations do,
> you might want to create a feature request issue for this
>
> Regards
> Carsten
>
>
> 2013/11/2 Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>
>
>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks again Robert,
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
>>>> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
>>>
>>>
>>> That occurred to me, but the naming was so similar that I ignored it.
>> SCR has been very inspirational then!
>>> In that case, would it be an idea to extend the annotation’s target to
>> methods as well as fields?
>>
>> Maybe. Hopefully SCR devs can chime in regarding this design decision.
>>
>>>
>>>> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
>>>> rather than a field?
>>>
>>>
>>> In my case, the value must be computed and retrieved from an external
>> source (the first time) but can then be cached and expected not to change,
>> which is why I have a service to provide it. I wonder how I could achieve
>> that with configuration?
>>
>>
>> What I mean was writing something like ( not tested )
>>
>> @Reference(name="myValue", interfaceReference = MyValue.class)
>> @Component
>> public class MyComp {
>>
>> protected void bindMyValue(MyValue val) { /* whatever */ }
>> }
>>
>> The only advantage of declaring a Reference on a field is that you
>> don't have to declare the name and interfaceReference properties,
>> which are inferred from the field. For more details, see [1].
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> [1]:
>> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-maven-scr-plugin/scr-annotations.html#reference
>>
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Dan.
>>>
>>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:57, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your reply. I was not actually aware the plugin generated
>> the methods, that’s very helpful!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have implemented the bind method in such a manner, but am forced to
>> have a pointless (and potentially destructively misleading) field that I
>> can’t prevent other people from using and therefore have to document that
>> it’s not to be used or put effort into writing the class to ensure it’s
>> null and thread safe on the reference - a task that would be implicit if
>> the field never existed. To illustrate, when all is well in my class I have
>> to have a warning that the field is unused, whereas what I need is a
>> warning if it is!
>>>>
>>>> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
>>>> rather than a field? You might need to use a holder @Properties
>>>> annotation if you have more than one annotation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am curious as to the rationale of it being a field annotation rather
>> than a method (or method + field), as it must have been a conscious choice
>> to deviate from the way the OSGi spec does it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
>>>> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Dan.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:43, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Felix users,
>>>>>>> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are
>> valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the OSGi
>> standard @Reference annotation.
>>>>>>> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep a
>> reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code in
>> the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For
>> example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int value;
>>>>>>> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
>>>>>>> value = s.getValue();
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference to
>> the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without
>> the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service
>> arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be null.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates a
>>>>>> 'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
>>>>>> class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
>>>>>> just like in your snippet above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carsten Ziegeler
> cziegeler@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Hi,
as Robert wrote, the scr annotations from the Apache Felix project predate
the annotations from the spec. Regardless of which annotations you use, the
result is compliant to the DS specification: a descriptor XML is generated
containing the references and for each reference the methods for bind and
unbind are listed and these methods must exist in the contained class.
While the Reference annotations from the OSGi spec is more pure in the
sense that you annotate the bind method, the one from Apache Felix is more
convenient at least for unnary references as you just annotate the field
and the methods are generated for you.
If you want to mimic the same behaviour, you have to use a Reference
annotation on the class as explained by Robert as well.
We could add support for annotation a method like the OSGi annotations do,
you might want to create a feature request issue for this
Regards
Carsten
2013/11/2 Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
> > Thanks again Robert,
> >
> >> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
> >> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
> >
> >
> > That occurred to me, but the naming was so similar that I ignored it.
> SCR has been very inspirational then!
> > In that case, would it be an idea to extend the annotation’s target to
> methods as well as fields?
>
> Maybe. Hopefully SCR devs can chime in regarding this design decision.
>
> >
> >> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
> >> rather than a field?
> >
> >
> > In my case, the value must be computed and retrieved from an external
> source (the first time) but can then be cached and expected not to change,
> which is why I have a service to provide it. I wonder how I could achieve
> that with configuration?
>
>
> What I mean was writing something like ( not tested )
>
> @Reference(name="myValue", interfaceReference = MyValue.class)
> @Component
> public class MyComp {
>
> protected void bindMyValue(MyValue val) { /* whatever */ }
> }
>
> The only advantage of declaring a Reference on a field is that you
> don't have to declare the name and interfaceReference properties,
> which are inferred from the field. For more details, see [1].
>
> Robert
>
> [1]:
> http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-maven-scr-plugin/scr-annotations.html#reference
>
> >
> > Many thanks,
> > Dan.
> >
> > On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:57, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi Robert,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your reply. I was not actually aware the plugin generated
> the methods, that’s very helpful!
> >>>
> >>> I have implemented the bind method in such a manner, but am forced to
> have a pointless (and potentially destructively misleading) field that I
> can’t prevent other people from using and therefore have to document that
> it’s not to be used or put effort into writing the class to ensure it’s
> null and thread safe on the reference - a task that would be implicit if
> the field never existed. To illustrate, when all is well in my class I have
> to have a warning that the field is unused, whereas what I need is a
> warning if it is!
> >>
> >> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
> >> rather than a field? You might need to use a holder @Properties
> >> annotation if you have more than one annotation.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I am curious as to the rationale of it being a field annotation rather
> than a method (or method + field), as it must have been a conscious choice
> to deviate from the way the OSGi spec does it.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
> >> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Best, Dan.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:43, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Dan,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Felix users,
> >>>>> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are
> valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the OSGi
> standard @Reference annotation.
> >>>>> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep a
> reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code in
> the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For
> example:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int value;
> >>>>> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
> >>>>> value = s.getValue();
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference to
> the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without
> the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service
> arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be null.
> >>>>
> >>>> The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates a
> >>>> 'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
> >>>> class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
> >>>> just like in your snippet above.
> >>>>
> >>>> Robert
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks, Dan.
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziegeler@apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
> Thanks again Robert,
>
>> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
>> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
>
>
> That occurred to me, but the naming was so similar that I ignored it. SCR has been very inspirational then!
> In that case, would it be an idea to extend the annotation’s target to methods as well as fields?
Maybe. Hopefully SCR devs can chime in regarding this design decision.
>
>> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
>> rather than a field?
>
>
> In my case, the value must be computed and retrieved from an external source (the first time) but can then be cached and expected not to change, which is why I have a service to provide it. I wonder how I could achieve that with configuration?
What I mean was writing something like ( not tested )
@Reference(name="myValue", interfaceReference = MyValue.class)
@Component
public class MyComp {
protected void bindMyValue(MyValue val) { /* whatever */ }
}
The only advantage of declaring a Reference on a field is that you
don't have to declare the name and interfaceReference properties,
which are inferred from the field. For more details, see [1].
Robert
[1]: http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-maven-scr-plugin/scr-annotations.html#reference
>
> Many thanks,
> Dan.
>
> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:57, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply. I was not actually aware the plugin generated the methods, that’s very helpful!
>>>
>>> I have implemented the bind method in such a manner, but am forced to have a pointless (and potentially destructively misleading) field that I can’t prevent other people from using and therefore have to document that it’s not to be used or put effort into writing the class to ensure it’s null and thread safe on the reference - a task that would be implicit if the field never existed. To illustrate, when all is well in my class I have to have a warning that the field is unused, whereas what I need is a warning if it is!
>>
>> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
>> rather than a field? You might need to use a holder @Properties
>> annotation if you have more than one annotation.
>>
>>>
>>> I am curious as to the rationale of it being a field annotation rather than a method (or method + field), as it must have been a conscious choice to deviate from the way the OSGi spec does it.
>>
>> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
>> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>>
>>> Best, Dan.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:43, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dan,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Felix users,
>>>>> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the OSGi standard @Reference annotation.
>>>>> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep a reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code in the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> int value;
>>>>> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
>>>>> value = s.getValue();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference to the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be null.
>>>>
>>>> The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates a
>>>> 'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
>>>> class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
>>>> just like in your snippet above.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>.
Thanks again Robert,
> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
That occurred to me, but the naming was so similar that I ignored it. SCR has been very inspirational then!
In that case, would it be an idea to extend the annotation’s target to methods as well as fields?
> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
> rather than a field?
In my case, the value must be computed and retrieved from an external source (the first time) but can then be cached and expected not to change, which is why I have a service to provide it. I wonder how I could achieve that with configuration?
Many thanks,
Dan.
On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:57, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply. I was not actually aware the plugin generated the methods, that’s very helpful!
>>
>> I have implemented the bind method in such a manner, but am forced to have a pointless (and potentially destructively misleading) field that I can’t prevent other people from using and therefore have to document that it’s not to be used or put effort into writing the class to ensure it’s null and thread safe on the reference - a task that would be implicit if the field never existed. To illustrate, when all is well in my class I have to have a warning that the field is unused, whereas what I need is a warning if it is!
>
> Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
> rather than a field? You might need to use a holder @Properties
> annotation if you have more than one annotation.
>
>>
>> I am curious as to the rationale of it being a field annotation rather than a method (or method + field), as it must have been a conscious choice to deviate from the way the OSGi spec does it.
>
> I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
> Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
>
> Robert
>
>>
>> Best, Dan.
>>
>>
>> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:43, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dan,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Felix users,
>>>> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the OSGi standard @Reference annotation.
>>>> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep a reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code in the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For example:
>>>>
>>>> int value;
>>>> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
>>>> value = s.getValue();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference to the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be null.
>>>
>>> The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates a
>>> 'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
>>> class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
>>> just like in your snippet above.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I was not actually aware the plugin generated the methods, that’s very helpful!
>
> I have implemented the bind method in such a manner, but am forced to have a pointless (and potentially destructively misleading) field that I can’t prevent other people from using and therefore have to document that it’s not to be used or put effort into writing the class to ensure it’s null and thread safe on the reference - a task that would be implicit if the field never existed. To illustrate, when all is well in my class I have to have a warning that the field is unused, whereas what I need is a warning if it is!
Hm, have you tried setting the property annotation on the class,
rather than a field? You might need to use a holder @Properties
annotation if you have more than one annotation.
>
> I am curious as to the rationale of it being a field annotation rather than a method (or method + field), as it must have been a conscious choice to deviate from the way the OSGi spec does it.
I'm not sure about the reason behind it, but I think that the
Felix-specific SCR annotations predate the OSGi spec for annotations.
Robert
>
> Best, Dan.
>
>
> On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:43, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Felix users,
>>> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the OSGi standard @Reference annotation.
>>> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep a reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code in the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For example:
>>>
>>> int value;
>>> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
>>> value = s.getValue();
>>> }
>>>
>>> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference to the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be null.
>>
>> The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates a
>> 'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
>> class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
>> just like in your snippet above.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Dan.
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com>.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your reply. I was not actually aware the plugin generated the methods, that’s very helpful!
I have implemented the bind method in such a manner, but am forced to have a pointless (and potentially destructively misleading) field that I can’t prevent other people from using and therefore have to document that it’s not to be used or put effort into writing the class to ensure it’s null and thread safe on the reference - a task that would be implicit if the field never existed. To illustrate, when all is well in my class I have to have a warning that the field is unused, whereas what I need is a warning if it is!
I am curious as to the rationale of it being a field annotation rather than a method (or method + field), as it must have been a conscious choice to deviate from the way the OSGi spec does it.
Best, Dan.
On 2 Nov 2013, at 13:43, Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
>> Hi Felix users,
>> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the OSGi standard @Reference annotation.
>> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep a reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code in the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For example:
>>
>> int value;
>> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
>> value = s.getValue();
>> }
>>
>> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference to the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be null.
>
> The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates a
> 'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
> class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
> just like in your snippet above.
>
> Robert
>
>>
>> Thanks, Dan.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
Re: SCR @Reference on fields?
Posted by Robert Munteanu <ro...@apache.org>.
Hi Dan,
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Daniel McGreal <da...@redbite.com> wrote:
> Hi Felix users,
> I wonder if anyone knows why the Felix @Reference annotations are valid on fields, but not methods, whereas the opposite is true for the OSGi standard @Reference annotation.
> I would very much like to have a service bound, which I don’t keep a reference to in the rest of my class (so that I can guarantee that code in the rest of the class doesn’t depend directly on the reference). For example:
>
> int value;
> private void bindValueGetter(ValueGetter s){
> value = s.getValue();
> }
>
> With the annotation on the field, I am forced to have a reference to the ValueGetter, which might mislead programmers into using it - without the reference there I can just keep the cached values when the service arrives the first time and not have to document, etc that it might be null.
The maven-scr-plugin ( and I think the ant task as well ) generates a
'bindValueGetter' method automatically if you don't have it in your
class. If you implement it yourself, you can control its behaviour,
just like in your snippet above.
Robert
>
> Thanks, Dan.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@felix.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@felix.apache.org