Rajini, If this goes into 1.0, can you please update Java user doc[1]? Thanks, Haleh
[1]:http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-user-guide.html On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Raymond, > > The classes annotated in the bundle should be the classes used to > implement > OSGi services. @Property for example, can be used to inject properties > only > if the the annotation is in the class or superclass of the object > implementing an OSGi service. > > @Scope (and some of the other annotations which are not tied to an object > instance) can be specified in any class in the bundle, but the class > should > be specified in <implementation.osgi/> for SCA to know that the class > should > be introspected. > > The classes that get introspected are the classes specified in < > implementation.osgi/> and the classes of the service objects. > > > Thank you... > > Regards, > > Rajini > > > On 8/30/07, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > What java classes do you expect to be annotated with SCA annotations in > > the > > OSGi bundle? > > > > Thanks, > > Raymond > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rajini Sivaram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:05 AM > > Subject: Re: implementation.osgi and SCA annotations > > > > > > > Ant, > > > > > > The defaults used by implementation.osgi match the default behaviour > of > > > OSGi > > > bundles. Scope is set to COMPOSITE, remotable interfaces use > > > pass-by-value, > > > and properties can only be set/read using standard OSGi mechanisms. > The > > > attributes provided in <implementation.osgi/> which are being replaced > > by > > > annotations provide support for SCA options in OSGi bundles, but these > > > require changes to the bundle anyway. So it makes sense to add these > > > additional properties in a way that is consistent with SCA, rather > than > > > add > > > something which is neither consistent with OSGi nor SCA. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you... > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > On 8/30/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >> If thats the way to go then doing it now would be better than after > 1.0 > > >> is > > >> out. > > >> > > >> But why can't the SCDL attributes be kept as well as supporting > > >> annotations > > >> and doesn't supporting both then mean non-SCA aware OSGi bundles can > > >> still > > >> be used with Tuscany? (not particularly concerned about this,would > just > > >> like > > >> to understand) > > >> > > >> ...ant > > >> > > >> On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Ant, > > >> > > > >> > Thank you. > > >> > > > >> > I was planning to remove the support for <implementation.osgi/> > > >> > attributes, > > >> > making it not backward compatible. That was one of the reasons I > > wanted > > >> to > > >> > introduce the change before 1.0. Is that a problem? > > >> > > > >> > Thank you... > > >> > > > >> > Regards, > > >> > > > >> > Rajini > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On 8/30/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > On 8/29/07, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Hello, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > We would like to start supporting SCA annotations in > > implementation > > >> > > > classes > > >> > > > used inside OSGi bundles to make implementation.osgi consistent > > >> > > > with > > >> > > > implementation.java. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > In the current implementation, SCA annotations are only > supported > > >> for > > >> > > > annotations used in interfaces, since we were keen on > supporting > > >> > > existing > > >> > > > OSGi bundles without any change. This meant that additional SCA > > >> > > properties > > >> > > > like @AllowsPassByReference had to be supported through > > additional > > >> > > > attributes on the <implementation.osgi/> element. But since > these > > >> > > > properties > > >> > > > do not have an OSGi equivalent, they cannot be used with > existing > > >> OSGi > > >> > > > bundles, and for new implementations which support these > > >> > > > properties, > > >> > we > > >> > > > would like to support SCA annotations to make the OSGi > > >> implementation > > >> > > > consistent with the Java implementation. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > This is a fairly big change in implementation.osgi, and I would > > >> > > > like > > >> > > your > > >> > > > views on whether this is a good time to make the change, so > that > > >> > > > the implementation will reflect the long-term strategy in the > > next > > >> > > > release. > > >> > > > I can submit a patch early next week if it can be integrated > > before > > >> > the > > >> > > > release. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > If you think it can be done in time then I think you should go > for > > >> > > it, > > >> > i'd > > >> > > commit any patches for you. The next release is 1.0 with the > > branch > > >> for > > >> > > that being taken around the 14th of September. If you can get > > patches > > >> > > submitted by at least a few days before then and the testcases > and > > >> > samples > > >> > > are working after the changes then I can't see any problem with > > going > > >> > > ahead > > >> > > now. > > >> > > > > >> > > Just to confirm one thing, are the changes going to be backward > > >> > > compatible, > > >> > > i.e. would SCDL that works today keep on working after the > changes > > >> > > are > > >> > > done? > > >> > > > > >> > > ...ant > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
