On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > In the OASIS spec you can override the remotable status of an > interface using the remotable flag on the interface element: > > <component name="HelloworldComponent"> > <implementation.java class="sample.HelloworldImpl"/> > <service name="HelloworldImpl"> > <interface.java interface="sample.Helloworld" remotable="true"/> > <binding.ws/> > </service> > </component> > > The idea is that when Helloworld looks like > > public interface Helloworld { > String sayHello(String name); > } > > You can use the flag to set the interface remotable. When Helloworld looks > like > > @Remotable > public interface Helloworld { > String sayHello(String name); > } > > Then you can't use the flag to unset it. > > There is a JIRA about this not working properly [1]. I've just been > looking at it. The problem is that we don't actually set remotable > based on this flag. This is a relatively straighforward thing to fix > but it leads to a question. In some of the databinding code there are > tests for remotable which prevents further processing if an interface > is not remotable. For example, DataBindingjavaInterfaceProcessor has > > public void visitInterface(JavaInterface javaInterface) throws > InvalidInterfaceException { > if (!javaInterface.isRemotable()) { > return; > } > List<Operation> operations = javaInterface.getOperations(); > processInterface(javaInterface, operations); > } > > This will run during introspection which is before we get to the > stage, in the builders, where the component and component type > interfaces are compared and where it would be sensible to apply the > override. I can make it work if I let this databinding processing > happen for non-remote interfaces just in case someone decides to > override them. Can anyone see a downside other than the extra > processing time it takes to calculate the interface types? > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-3459 > > Simon > -- > Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
It seems that there were some more issues around this (see [1])... I'll try to dig out some more and see if I can remember little more from when I was working on this in the past. [1] http://tuscany.markmail.org/thread/nfzvrtrgrkdhqfkp -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
