[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-09-12 Thread Graham Charters
I've checked the code and unit tests into FULMAR. Couldn't get round the PHP difference in behaviour for defining classes with interfaces, so services using this feature will have to put the SCA.php include after the definition of the class. I'll update the bug. Graham. On 11 Sep, 16:29, Graha

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-09-11 Thread Graham Charters
> > You could go the other way though, and exploit this behaviour to force > SCA to be deferred. Interesting idea, so I thought I'd try it. I had my SCA class implement an empty interface, and sadly, it made no difference. The call to the static SCA::initComponent method is after the definition

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-09-11 Thread Caroline Maynard
Graham Charters wrote: > I've just created the test case and reproduced the behaviour (I won't > say "problem" because I think perhaps what we recommend today might be > the real problem). I tried something which I thought I'd already > attempted and it worked. So here's the explanation. > > It

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-09-11 Thread Graham Charters
I've just created the test case and reproduced the behaviour (I won't say "problem" because I think perhaps what we recommend today might be the real problem). I tried something which I thought I'd already attempted and it worked. So here's the explanation. It seems having interfaces changes wh

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-09-10 Thread simonslaws
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 c

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-09-08 Thread Graham Charters
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_cl

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-09-03 Thread Graham Charters
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 oth

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-08-31 Thread Matthew Schultz
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 PROTE

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-08-31 Thread Matthew Schultz
Setting @service on the interface to allow exclusion of methods in the class also seems the best route to me. The only thing I see missing is if the service is set on the interface, I suppose you would want to annotate all the methods on the interface instead of the class? Matt On 31 Aug, 06:

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-08-31 Thread simonslaws
On 31 Aug, 12:20, 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 rapi

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-08-31 Thread Graham Charters
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: > > > >

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-08-31 Thread simonslaws
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 informat

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-08-31 Thread Graham Charters
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. lo

[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)

2007-08-31 Thread simonslaws
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) t