Simon,
Yes, you've hit one of the parts of the Java spec that makes me least
comfortable.
The idea of sending around a reference for others to use is not
something that fills me with joy, when that reference is essentially a
reference to an instance. I feel the religious debates about
WS-Addressing coming on....
Once instances can disappear in a puff of smoke, this whole area of
function gets to be very uncomfortable. Furthermore, if you did the
passing around in the case of a callback service, who does the provider
get to talk with???
Simon Laws wrote:
Yes, I think so. From a specification point of view I was worrying about
the expected timescale of resource removal. Your assertion that it means
that the conversation cannot be reused clarifies this point.
I'm not sure I agree with the MAY in the sentence "depending on the
implementation of the comms mechanism between client and provider that MAY
require some
additional communication to travel from the client side to the provider
side.". I can't square this away easily with the requirement of section
1.6.3 of the Java Annotations and API spec to allow for the passing of
conversational services as parameters where, if I understand it correctly,
a third party could be holding a reference to a conversation for which the
original client now calls Conversation.end(). Here a timeout is not good
enough and the service should be aware that the conversation has ended.
I suppose the MAY clause can be seen as being associated with whether
any references have been copied or not. If not, there are no worries.
At least the sending of a reference can in principle be detected since
it can't be used unless instantiated by some (SCA) runtime.
Yours, Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
