[phpsoa] Re: json rpc patch
On 7 Aug, 11:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7 Aug, 10:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch I have uploaded includes a change to see whether the $content_type variable contains the string application/json-rpc rather than checking whether it is equal to it. The patch will change the file pecl/sdo/SCA/Bindings/jsonrpc/ RequestTester.php Thanks Tom. I'll take a look at it a bit later. Simon Tom, thank you for the patch. I've now applied it to the FULMER branch. Regards Simon --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups phpsoa group. To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
Hi Graham
Some more comments in line...
On 31 Aug, 11:26, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Simon, thanks for the rapid comments. Here's my thoughts on the
two issues you identified:
1/ What should SCA do if it finds a method without annotations, i.e.
no type information
This probably depends on the type of service. Service types which
don't have a service description (e.g. local, REST and Atom), don't
require this information to be specified. Service types which do have
service descriptions (soap, json-rpc, xml-rpc), do (to varying
degrees).
I think if the binding type requires documentation then we should warn
and not generate (rather than generating something which is of no
use). If the binding type doesn't require documentation then it's
included.
2/ How can methods be omitted from the service interface, i.e. we just
don't want to expose the method
I don't think the absence of comments should be used as a control
mechanism for the reason you and Matt have already highlighted (might
want to document something but still not have it on the service
interface).
I quite like the idea of using interfaces to add this level of
control. It would also be consistent with SCA (SCA Java does this and
also supports the same class implementation approach we use (i.e.
where there is no interface)). How about something like:
/**
* Scaffold implementation for a remote StockQuote Web service.
*
* @service StockQuoteInterface
* @binding.soap
*
*/
StockQuoteImpl implements StockQuoteInterface, ANOtherInterface {
...
}
So I like @service StokeQuoteInterface
If you are suggesting that we can parse the StockQuoteInterface to
pull out the method names which should be provided as service
interfaces (without the need for further annotation on the interface
itself) then this could work. My approach was a contraction of this by
just providing the method names after the interface name in the
annotation but your approach is more forward thinking.
Presumably the default would be to provide all methods if no interface
is described.
This would be taken to mean that only those methods defined on
StockQuoteInterface are part of the soap service. Those in
ANOtherInterface or just in StockQuoteImpl would be excluded. I'd
prefer to pursue this approach rather than creating a new annotations
which may go away in the near future.
Does this make sense and seem sensible?
On 31 Aug, 09:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Aug, 08:42, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pecl Request #11944 (http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11944) is
asking for finer-grained control over the methods which are surfaced
on a service interface. We currently just use class visibility (i.e.
all public methods) to control this.
There's a small amount of discussion in the request, but I thought it
would be good to raise it here to get greater visibility and gather
more options/opinions.
Graham.
Following up on the comments made in the feature request...
It is true that in the Java SCA implementation the @Service
information is associated with interfaces so a class will implementat
one, or more, interfaces and this tells the runtime which methods of
the class should be treated as service methods.
This is not currently how the PHP SCA implementation works. All
annotations are placed on the class itself. This leads to a level of
simplicity in service construction but we pay for this in lack of
flexibility, for example, in excluding some methods from the service
interface. At least given the set of annotations we have at the
moment.
Having said this I'm not convinced that the use of unannotated (is
that a word?) methods as part of the service interface makes a lot of
sense give the way that the implementation works at the moment. If you
look at what is actually generated in the WSDL in the case of the
method function foo($bar) in the feature request it doesn't seem to
be that useful. I.e. it defines null input and output types. I assume
this is because there are no annotations for SCA to use for typing the
interface. Fine for PHP but not so great for a service interface.
So there are two issues here
1/ What should SCA do if it finds a method without annotations, i.e.
no type information
2/ How can methods be omitted from the service interface, i.e. we just
don't want to expose the method
As first suggested we could omit methods that don't have comments at
all.. However this is problematic for issue 2 as annotations may have
been included for producing the documentation that the annotations
were originally designed for. However I think we should consider
omitting methods without annotations due to issue 1 so this could be a
short term solution 2.
Following the conversation on for issue 2. Maybe, as an alternative to
@scaExcludeMethod we could defined some new annotation for the
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
Comments inlined below...
On 31 Aug, 11:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Graham
Some more comments in line...
On 31 Aug, 11:26, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Simon, thanks for the rapid comments. Here's my thoughts on the
two issues you identified:
1/ What should SCA do if it finds a method without annotations, i.e.
no type information
This probably depends on the type of service. Service types which
don't have a service description (e.g. local, REST and Atom), don't
require this information to be specified. Service types which do have
service descriptions (soap, json-rpc, xml-rpc), do (to varying
degrees).
I think if the binding type requires documentation then we should warn
and not generate (rather than generating something which is of no
use). If the binding type doesn't require documentation then it's
included.
2/ How can methods be omitted from the service interface, i.e. we just
don't want to expose the method
I don't think the absence of comments should be used as a control
mechanism for the reason you and Matt have already highlighted (might
want to document something but still not have it on the service
interface).
I quite like the idea of using interfaces to add this level of
control. It would also be consistent with SCA (SCA Java does this and
also supports the same class implementation approach we use (i.e.
where there is no interface)). How about something like:
/**
* Scaffold implementation for a remote StockQuote Web service.
*
* @service StockQuoteInterface
* @binding.soap
*
*/
StockQuoteImpl implements StockQuoteInterface, ANOtherInterface {
...
}
So I like @service StokeQuoteInterface
If you are suggesting that we can parse the StockQuoteInterface to
pull out the method names which should be provided as service
interfaces (without the need for further annotation on the interface
itself) then this could work. My approach was a contraction of this by
just providing the method names after the interface name in the
annotation but your approach is more forward thinking.
We should be able to update this in SCA_AnnotationReader.php. I
believe all the information is available through Reflection. You can
call getInterfaces() on the ReflectionClass, which returns an array of
ReflectionClass objects, one for each interface. I don't think we
would require further annotations in the interface, but we will need
to decided whether to use annotations/documentation in an interface if
it is provided.
Presumably the default would be to provide all methods if no interface
is described.
Yes, so this would be backwards compatible.
This would be taken to mean that only those methods defined on
StockQuoteInterface are part of the soap service. Those in
ANOtherInterface or just in StockQuoteImpl would be excluded. I'd
prefer to pursue this approach rather than creating a new annotations
which may go away in the near future.
Does this make sense and seem sensible?
On 31 Aug, 09:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Aug, 08:42, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pecl Request #11944 (http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11944) is
asking for finer-grained control over the methods which are surfaced
on a service interface. We currently just use class visibility (i.e.
all public methods) to control this.
There's a small amount of discussion in the request, but I thought it
would be good to raise it here to get greater visibility and gather
more options/opinions.
Graham.
Following up on the comments made in the feature request...
It is true that in the Java SCA implementation the @Service
information is associated with interfaces so a class will implementat
one, or more, interfaces and this tells the runtime which methods of
the class should be treated as service methods.
This is not currently how the PHP SCA implementation works. All
annotations are placed on the class itself. This leads to a level of
simplicity in service construction but we pay for this in lack of
flexibility, for example, in excluding some methods from the service
interface. At least given the set of annotations we have at the
moment.
Having said this I'm not convinced that the use of unannotated (is
that a word?) methods as part of the service interface makes a lot of
sense give the way that the implementation works at the moment. If you
look at what is actually generated in the WSDL in the case of the
method function foo($bar) in the feature request it doesn't seem to
be that useful. I.e. it defines null input and output types. I assume
this is because there are no annotations for SCA to use for typing the
interface. Fine for PHP but not so great for a service interface.
So there are two issues here
1/ What should SCA do if it finds a method without annotations, i.e.
no type
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
Actually after a second glance, I see all annotations are still set in
the class. It probably wouldn't make any sense to have SCA parse
annotations in the interface.
Matt
On 31 Aug, 06:20, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments inlined below...
On 31 Aug, 11:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Graham
Some more comments in line...
On 31 Aug, 11:26, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Simon, thanks for the rapid comments. Here's my thoughts on the
two issues you identified:
1/ What should SCA do if it finds a method without annotations, i.e.
no type information
This probably depends on the type of service. Service types which
don't have a service description (e.g. local, REST and Atom), don't
require this information to be specified. Service types which do have
service descriptions (soap, json-rpc, xml-rpc), do (to varying
degrees).
I think if the binding type requires documentation then we should warn
and not generate (rather than generating something which is of no
use). If the binding type doesn't require documentation then it's
included.
2/ How can methods be omitted from the service interface, i.e. we just
don't want to expose the method
I don't think the absence of comments should be used as a control
mechanism for the reason you and Matt have already highlighted (might
want to document something but still not have it on the service
interface).
I quite like the idea of using interfaces to add this level of
control. It would also be consistent with SCA (SCA Java does this and
also supports the same class implementation approach we use (i.e.
where there is no interface)). How about something like:
/**
* Scaffold implementation for a remote StockQuote Web service.
*
* @service StockQuoteInterface
* @binding.soap
*
*/
StockQuoteImpl implements StockQuoteInterface, ANOtherInterface {
...
}
So I like @service StokeQuoteInterface
If you are suggesting that we can parse the StockQuoteInterface to
pull out the method names which should be provided as service
interfaces (without the need for further annotation on the interface
itself) then this could work. My approach was a contraction of this by
just providing the method names after the interface name in the
annotation but your approach is more forward thinking.
We should be able to update this in SCA_AnnotationReader.php. I
believe all the information is available through Reflection. You can
call getInterfaces() on the ReflectionClass, which returns an array of
ReflectionClass objects, one for each interface. I don't think we
would require further annotations in the interface, but we will need
to decided whether to use annotations/documentation in an interface if
it is provided.
Presumably the default would be to provide all methods if no interface
is described.
Yes, so this would be backwards compatible.
This would be taken to mean that only those methods defined on
StockQuoteInterface are part of the soap service. Those in
ANOtherInterface or just in StockQuoteImpl would be excluded. I'd
prefer to pursue this approach rather than creating a new annotations
which may go away in the near future.
Does this make sense and seem sensible?
On 31 Aug, 09:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Aug, 08:42, Graham Charters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pecl Request #11944 (http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11944) is
asking for finer-grained control over the methods which are surfaced
on a service interface. We currently just use class visibility (i.e.
all public methods) to control this.
There's a small amount of discussion in the request, but I thought it
would be good to raise it here to get greater visibility and gather
more options/opinions.
Graham.
Following up on the comments made in the feature request...
It is true that in the Java SCA implementation the @Service
information is associated with interfaces so a class will implementat
one, or more, interfaces and this tells the runtime which methods of
the class should be treated as service methods.
This is not currently how the PHP SCA implementation works. All
annotations are placed on the class itself. This leads to a level of
simplicity in service construction but we pay for this in lack of
flexibility, for example, in excluding some methods from the service
interface. At least given the set of annotations we have at the
moment.
Having said this I'm not convinced that the use of unannotated (is
that a word?) methods as part of the service interface makes a lot of
sense give the way that the implementation works at the moment. If you
look at what is actually generated in the WSDL in the case of the
method function foo($bar) in the feature request it doesn't seem to
be that useful.
