On 8/20/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] > > Yes, agreed. If we haven't created any service reference copies then the MAY is good.
Simon
