On 8 Sep, 09:30, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just a quick status update...
>
> I've done the code to optionally allow an interface to be specified
> and tested this independent of a protocol binding and all works fine.
> Unfortunately, when called from a remote invocation, the classexists
> tests for the service implementation fails.  Get_declared_classes()
> confirms that it does not have the definition and
> get_declared_interfaces() confirms that it knows about the
> interfaces.  Removing the interfaces makes everything work as before,
> so it appears to be a PHP nit.
>
> I'm going to try to create a little test case to reproduce this
> outside SCA.  If anyone has heard of anything which might be relevant,
> please let me know.
>
> Graham.
>
> On 3 Sep, 13:18, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It sounds like we may have consensus.  To summarise:
>
> > 1.  We should add the ability to specify an optional interface for the
> > service on the @service annotation (e.g. @service
> > MyServiceInterface).  This would only be used to limit the methods
> > exposed by the service, so we would not look for any other metadata in
> > the interface (we could support this later).
> > 2.  We should not include methods in service descriptions which have
> > not been appropriately documented (this is to avoid generating duff
> > services descriptions, and is not meant to be used as a means of
> > controlling the service interface).
>
> > Hopefully I'll be able to take a look at 1 sometime towards the end of
> > this week, unless someone else is itching to do it :-D
>
> > Graham.
>
> > On 31 Aug, 15:03, Matthew Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Actually 
> > after a second glance, I see all annotations are still set in
> > > the class.  It probably wouldn't make any sense to have SCA parse
> > > annotations in the interface.
>
> > > Matt
>
> > > On 31 Aug, 06:20, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Comments 
> > > inlined below...
>
> > > > On 31 Aug, 11:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi Graham
>
> > > > > Some more comments in line...
>
> > > > > On 31 Aug, 11:26, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi Simon, thanks for the rapid comments.  Here's my thoughts on the
> > > > > > two issues you identified:
>
> > > > > > > 1/ What should SCA do if it finds a method without annotations, 
> > > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > no type information
>
> > > > > > This probably depends on the type of service.  Service types which
> > > > > > don't have a service description (e.g. local, REST and Atom), don't
> > > > > > require this information to be specified.  Service types which do 
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > service descriptions (soap, json-rpc, xml-rpc), do (to varying
> > > > > > degrees).
>
> > > > > > I think if the binding type requires documentation then we should 
> > > > > > warn
> > > > > > and not generate (rather than generating something which is of no
> > > > > > use).  If the binding type doesn't require documentation then it's
> > > > > > included.
>
> > > > > > > 2/ How can methods be omitted from the service interface, i.e. we 
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > don't want to expose the method
>
> > > > > > I don't think the absence of comments should be used as a control
> > > > > > mechanism for the reason you and Matt have already highlighted 
> > > > > > (might
> > > > > > want to document something but still not have it on the service
> > > > > > interface).
>
> > > > > > I quite like the idea of using interfaces to add this level of
> > > > > > control.  It would also be consistent with SCA (SCA Java does this 
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > also supports the same class implementation approach we use (i.e.
> > > > > > where there is no interface)).  How about something like:
>
> > > > > > /**
> > > > > >  * Scaffold implementation for a remote StockQuote Web service.
> > > > > >  *
> > > > > >  * @service StockQuoteInterface
> > > > > >  * @binding.soap
> > > > > >  *
> > > > > >  */
> > > > > > StockQuoteImpl implements StockQuoteInterface, ANOtherInterface {
> > > > > >   ...
>
> > > > > > }
>
> > > > > So I like @service StokeQuoteInterface
>
> > > > > If you are suggesting that we can parse the StockQuoteInterface to
> > > > > pull out the method names which should be provided as service
> > > > > interfaces (without the need for further annotation on the interface
> > > > > itself) then this could work. My approach was a contraction of this by
> > > > > just providing the method names after the interface name in the
> > > > > annotation but your approach is more forward thinking.
>
> > > > We should be able to update this in SCA_AnnotationReader.php.  I
> > > > believe all the information is available through Reflection.  You can
> > > > call getInterfaces() on the ReflectionClass, which returns an array of
> > > > ReflectionClass objects, one for each interface.  I don't think we
> > > > would require further annotations in the interface, but we will need
> > > > to decided whether to use annotations/documentation in an interface if
> > > > it is provided.
>
> > > > > Presumably the default would be to provide all methods if no interface
> > > > > is described.
>
> > > > Yes, so this would be backwards compatible.
>
> > > > > > This would be taken to mean that only those methods defined on
> > > > > > StockQuoteInterface are part of the soap service.  Those in
> > > > > > ANOtherInterface or just in StockQuoteImpl would be excluded.  I'd
> > > > > > prefer to pursue this approach rather than creating a new 
> > > > > > annotations
> > > > > > which may go away in the near future.
>
> > > > > > Does this make sense and seem sensible?
>
> > > > > > On 31 Aug, 09:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 31 Aug, 08:42, Graham Charters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Pecl Request #11944 (http://pecl.php.net/bugs/bug.php?id=11944) 
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > asking for finer-grained control over the methods which are 
> > > > > > > > surfaced
> > > > > > > > on a service interface.  We currently just use class visibility 
> > > > > > > > (i.e.
> > > > > > > > all public methods) to control this.
>
> > > > > > > > There's a small amount of discussion in the request, but I 
> > > > > > > > thought it
> > > > > > > > would be good to raise it here to get greater visibility and 
> > > > > > > > gather
> > > > > > > > more options/opinions.
>
> > > > > > > > Graham.
>
> > > > > > > Following up on the comments made in the feature request...
>
> > > > > > > It is true that in the Java SCA implementation the @Service
> > > > > > > information is associated with interfaces so a class will 
> > > > > > > implementat
> > > > > > > one, or more, interfaces and this tells the runtime which methods 
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the class should be treated as service methods.
>
> > > > > > > This is not currently how the PHP SCA implementation works. All
> > > > > > > annotations are placed on the class itself. This leads to a level 
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > simplicity in service construction but we pay for this in lack of
> > > > > > > flexibility, for example, in excluding some methods from the 
> > > > > > > service
> > > > > > > interface. At least given the set of annotations we have at the
> > > > > > > moment.
>
> > > > > > > Having said this I'm not convinced that the use of unannotated (is
> > > > > > > that a word?) methods as part of the service interface makes a 
> > > > > > > lot of
> > > > > > > sense give the way that the implementation works at the moment. 
> > > > > > > If you
> > > > > > > look at what is actually generated in the WSDL in the case of the
> > > > > > > method "function foo($bar)" in the feature request it doesn't 
> > > > > > > seem to
> > > > > > > be that useful. I.e. it defines null input and output types. I 
> > > > > > > assume
> > > > > > > this is because there are no annotations for SCA to use for 
> > > > > > > typing the
> > > > > > > interface. Fine for PHP but not so great for a service interface.
>
> > > > > > > So there are two issues here
>
> > > > > > > 1/ What should SCA do if it finds a method without annotations, 
> > > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > no type information
> > > > > > > 2/ How can methods be omitted from the service interface, i.e. we 
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > don't want to expose the method
>
> > > > > > > As first suggested we could omit methods that don't have comments 
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > all.. However this is problematic for issue 2 as annotations may 
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > been included for producing the documentation that the annotations
> > > > > > > were originally designed for. However I think we should consider
> > > > > > > omitting methods without annotations due to issue 1 so this could 
> > > > > > > be a
> > > > > > > short term solution 2.
>
> > > > > > > Following the conversation on for issue 2. Maybe, as an 
> > > > > > > alternative to
> > > > > > > @scaExcludeMethod we could defined some new annotation for the 
> > > > > > > header
> > > > > > > block that works as an alternative to defining an interface (we 
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > look whether interfaces could be made to work), e.g.
>
> > > > > > > /**
> > > > > > >  * Scaffold implementation for a remote StockQuote Web service.
> > > > > > >  *
> > > > > > >  * @service
> > > > > > >  * @serviceinterface GetQuote getQuote
> > > > > > >  * @binding.soap
> > > > > > >  *
> > > > > > >  */
>
> > > > > > >  If these don't appear then the default would be to operate as now
> > > > > > > with all of the (annotated) methods being parsed. The intention 
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > being to replace/augment this with annotations on interfaces 
> > > > > > > if/'when
> > > > > > > they work.
>
> > > > > > > Regards
>
> > > > > > > Simon

Doesn't ring any bells with me. In this situation does it think the
class has been declared once the class has been used?

Simon


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"phpsoa" group.
To post to this group, send email to phpsoa@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/phpsoa?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to