I share Glyn's concerns, but can someone remind me where the strawman is?! Thanks!
andy At 11:07 AM 6/14/2007, Glyn Normington wrote: >"Stanley M. Ho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 13/06/2007 07:19:10 PM: > > > Since I have not heard any further input on the services and > > service-providers strawman, I suppose the EG is fine with the strawman > > overall except the issue raised by Richard. Unless I hear any objection, > > I will incorporate the appropriate portion of the strawman based on the > > feedback you have provided into the next revision of the specification. > >I am very concerned that the scope of JSR 277 is being expanded >considerably without much attention being paid to the state of the >art (particularly Spring-OSGi and Declarative Services). If we could >implement good interoperation with JSR 291, we could delegate the >complexities of supporting services to JSR 291 and technologies like >Spring-OSGi that layer nicely on top of JSR 291. > >Apart from that, the support for services in the strawman has some >obvious holes, so I don't think it is ready to be incorporated into >the JSR 277 specification: > >1. It seems to be lacking any form of dependency injection. > >2. The namespace of services is global, but not partitioned by >service interface version. The effect of this is that a module could >import v1 of a service interface class and obtain an instance of the >service that implements v2 of the service interface and get a class >cast exception. > >3. There is no support for dynamic updates of service providers and >notification of service updates to service consumers. (This is >consistent with JSR 277's static nature, but I point it out as this >is an obvious future requirement based on our experience in OSGi.) > >4. There seems to be some confusion in the strawman between loading >of service interfaces/implementations and construction and >publication of service instances. > >I wonder what other Expert Group members think of this strawman. >Silence does not necessarily indicate happiness, so it would be good >to have more feedback. > >Glyn > > > >---------- > > >Unless stated otherwise above: >IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with >number 741598. >Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > > > Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
