A further attempt at simplifying the explanation of
conversation id and propagation.
Basically, if a service component is conversational (i.e.,
its interface is annotated as such) then there are two
cases: (1) if the component is non-remotable then it
gets a conv id propagated to it if there is o
Yes, I agree with the nit wrt the interface. One issue with
the @Scope("CONVERSATIONAL") annotation is that,
as I try to point out below, in my mind it does not make
sense to use this kind of scope independently of the
interface annotation. Do you agree?
On 11/17/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Comment to your @Conversation annotation remark inline.
On 11/17/06, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a fairly confusing area and I welcome your efforts to clarify
this.
On 16/11/06, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> After looking at (the previous) version 0.9 of
> the implementation must keep track
The definition of scopes was originally in the Java C&I spec, then it
was removed with the intention of putting it in Assembly. The spec
group then decided it need to go back to the individual language
specs. I haven't had the chance to update the Java spec b
On 17/11/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Pete Robbins wrote:
> This is a fairly confusing area and I welcome your efforts to
> clarify this.
>
> On 16/11/06, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> After looking at (the previous) version 0.9
On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:11 PM, Pete Robbins wrote:
This is a fairly confusing area and I welcome your efforts to
clarify this.
On 16/11/06, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After looking at (the previous) version 0.9 of the C&I spec
and a discussion with Jim and Mike Rowley on
On Nov 16, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
After looking at (the previous) version 0.9 of the C&I spec
and a discussion with Jim and Mike Rowley on the
conversational services section, I am going to try to
summarize my current understanding, Jim, Mike, please
jump in if I mis-state
This is a fairly confusing area and I welcome your efforts to clarify this.
On 16/11/06, Ignacio Silva-Lepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After looking at (the previous) version 0.9 of the C&I spec
and a discussion with Jim and Mike Rowley on the
conversational services section, I am going to try
After looking at (the previous) version 0.9 of the C&I spec
and a discussion with Jim and Mike Rowley on the
conversational services section, I am going to try to
summarize my current understanding, Jim, Mike, please
jump in if I mis-state or forget to mention something here.
A conversation is in
So, are the multiple complementation instances also of one
or more types? You don't seem to be saying otherwise.
I guess this is probably motivated by transactions, with a
conversation id playing the role of a transaction context?
It may be useful to try to attach (some of) these properties
to th
On Nov 15, 2006, at 8:02 AM, Ignacio Silva-Lepe wrote:
The C&I spec seems to imply that a conversation involves a single
service component and that's what I have been assuming so far, but
I would like to make sure that the restriction indeed applies.
There can be multiple component implementat
The C&I spec seems to imply that a conversation involves a single
service component and that's what I have been assuming so far, but
I would like to make sure that the restriction indeed applies.
If the restriction does apply then we'll need to be careful about which
conversation id is the curren
12 matches
Mail list logo
