Dan, I think this error has got nothing to do with running with Java 2 security on. See TUSCANY-2272 for a reference to the spec that says the lifecycle methods must be public.
++Vamsi On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Dan Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote: > > > I have created a JIRA TUSCANY-2296 describing the problem. I have also > > posted a patch file that will help understand the problem better. > > > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for your contribution to the vtest bucket for @Init and > > > @Destroy annotations. Can you say why you do not use the SCADomain > > > APIs to configure the domain and locate services from the test client? > > > I would like to keep this pattern consistent throughout the entire > > > suite. > > > > > > This is a somewhat related question. I am running the sample-store service > via the given Launch class. With Java 2 security off, the example runs as > intended. With Java 2 security on, there is a ContributionResolveException. > It seems that the @Init implementation scope is added to a protected > method, not public. > > Here is the first part of the stack trace that I print out using a bit of > extra debug code in JavaImplementationProcessor.resolve method. > > JavaImplementationProcessor.resolve > error=org.apache.tuscany.sca.implementation.java.introspect.impl.IllegalInitException: > Initializer must be a public method. Invalid annotation @Init found on > protected void services.ShoppingCartImpl.init() > org.apache.tuscany.sca.implementation.java.introspect.impl.IllegalInitException: > Initializer must be a public method. Invalid annotation @Init found on > protected void services.ShoppingCartImpl.init() > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.implementation.java.introspect.impl.InitProcessor.visitMethod(InitProcessor.java:57) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.implementation.java.impl.JavaClassIntrospectorImpl.introspectClass(JavaClassIntrospectorImpl.java:99) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.implementation.java.impl.JavaImplementationFactoryImpl.createJavaImplementation(JavaImplementationFactoryImpl.java:53) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.implementation.java.xml.JavaImplementationProcessor.resolve(JavaImplementationProcessor.java:152) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.implementation.java.xml.JavaImplementationProcessor.resolve(JavaImplementationProcessor.java:1) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.DefaultStAXArtifactProcessorExtensionPoint$LazyStAXArtifactProcessor.resolve(DefaultStAXArtifactProcessorExtensionPoint.java:287) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.contribution.processor.ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor.resolve(ExtensibleStAXArtifactProcessor.java:116) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.BaseAssemblyProcessor.resolveImplementation(BaseAssemblyProcessor.java:271) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.resolve(CompositeProcessor.java:903) > at > org.apache.tuscany.sca.assembly.xml.CompositeProcessor.resolve(CompositeProcessor.java:1) > > > I've checked the SCA_JavaAnnotationsAndAPIs_V100 specification, but I see > no mention that this API be public. What say the SCA experts? Should these > implementation scoped methods be public? Or do you think there should be > more privileged blocks to allow this to run with security on? Or other? > > -- > Thanks, Dan Becker >
