There was some discussion about this on the Java spec call today and
I have agreed to write up a proposal for how this can work. I plan
to start this on our wiki - if anyone is interested please jump in.
http://wiki.apache.org/ws/Tuscany/SpecProposals/Resources
--
Jeremy
On Oct 9, 2006, at 5:19 AM, scabooz wrote:
Hi guys,
Special attention for Jim toward the end of this.
There have been some branches in this email thread.
Apologies if I don't inject at the right point in the chain, but
much of the discussion is not related to the point I want to
make. I need to react to something that's been discussed
along the way.
The notion that a property somehow represents a contract
between the implementation and the container is quite a
stretch IMHO. The real purpose of a property is to
configure a business service so that the component
behaves as the business would expect. I can see your
perspective when viewed from the aspect of someone
developing the runtime. It is certainly true that the container
has responsibility for creating properties, BUT it has the exact
same responsibility for injecting business services onto
references. So, the argument you're making for using properties
to hold references to system services holds on water.
However, I do have sympathy with the idea that there are
built-in services which SCA business component
implementations can use. These built-in services live in
a kind of "no man's land" right now. On one hand
we have properties (which are defined by the both the
Java spec spec and the assembly spec as described by XML
schema) that are used to provide parameterization of business
logic and we have business services that are assembled into
compositions of SOA services. I agree with Jim that we
should maintain a clear separation of purpose between
property and reference. After thinking on this for a while,
I've decided that the spec has correctly defined the property
concept, therefore the use of property to hold references
to "system services" is inappropriate and actually
violates the spec. This comes across more harshly than
I am intending. Jim, I think you need to raise this issue
in the spec group, if you really think that properties
should have the semantics you want. Despite the
current lack of compliance language in the specs, I think
it's still very clear where the boundaries of properties are.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
