[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
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 when the class gets defined. We
currently suggest the following code layout for a service
implementation:
/* includes for anything the service impl requires */
include 'stuff.php';
// this must be the last include
include 'SCA/SCA.php';
class MyService {}
This all works fine. SCA::initComponent(...) runs in the include of
SCA.php and it tests for classexists('MyService'); and finds that it
does exist.
The problem comes when we add an interface, as shown below:
/* includes for anything the service impl requires */
include 'stuff.php';
// this must be the last include
include 'SCA/SCA.php';
interface MyServiceInterface {}
class MyService implements MyServiceInterface {}
In the above example, the test for classexists('MyService') fails.
Get_declared_classes() confirms it doesn't exist and
get_declared_interfaces() shows that the interface does exist. The
simple/obvious fix, which I thought I'd tried last week, but clearly
hadn't is to move the include after the class declaration, as follows:
/* includes for anything the service impl requires */
include 'stuff.php';
interface MyServiceInterface {}
class MyService implements MyServiceInterface {}
// this must be the last include
include 'SCA/SCA.php';
I need to turn my tests into phpunit tests and merge with the latest
in pecl. I'm hoping I'll be able to do that tonight.
Graham.
On 10 Sep, 16:14, Caroline Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Charters 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.
There are some peculiarities in this area, and people familiar with
inheritance from other languages are likely to have expectations which
are not satisfied by PHP. For example, there are restrictions on how you
can use inherited interfaces in type hints, which result in fatal errors
for code you might reasonably expect to work. It doesn't sound as if
that's the problem here, but it may be something similar.
I'm going to try to create a little test case to reproduce this
outside SCA.
That would help.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
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
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
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.
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
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
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
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.
Presumably the default would be to provide all methods if no interface
is described.
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
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
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
[phpsoa] Re: Finer-grained control over service methods (Pecl Request #11944)
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.
