If thats the way to go then doing it now would be better than after 1.0 is out.
But why can't the SCDL attributes be kept as well as supporting annotations and doesn't supporting both then mean non-SCA aware OSGi bundles can still be used with Tuscany? (not particularly concerned about this,would just like to understand) ...ant On 8/30/07, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ant, > > Thank you. > > I was planning to remove the support for <implementation.osgi/> > attributes, > making it not backward compatible. That was one of the reasons I wanted to > introduce the change before 1.0. Is that a problem? > > Thank you... > > Regards, > > Rajini > > > > On 8/30/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 8/29/07, Rajini Sivaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > We would like to start supporting SCA annotations in implementation > > > classes > > > used inside OSGi bundles to make implementation.osgi consistent with > > > implementation.java. > > > > > > In the current implementation, SCA annotations are only supported for > > > annotations used in interfaces, since we were keen on supporting > > existing > > > OSGi bundles without any change. This meant that additional SCA > > properties > > > like @AllowsPassByReference had to be supported through additional > > > attributes on the <implementation.osgi/> element. But since these > > > properties > > > do not have an OSGi equivalent, they cannot be used with existing OSGi > > > bundles, and for new implementations which support these properties, > we > > > would like to support SCA annotations to make the OSGi implementation > > > consistent with the Java implementation. > > > > > > This is a fairly big change in implementation.osgi, and I would like > > your > > > views on whether this is a good time to make the change, so that > > > the implementation will reflect the long-term strategy in the next > > > release. > > > I can submit a patch early next week if it can be integrated before > the > > > release. > > > > > > If you think it can be done in time then I think you should go for it, > i'd > > commit any patches for you. The next release is 1.0 with the branch for > > that being taken around the 14th of September. If you can get patches > > submitted by at least a few days before then and the testcases and > samples > > are working after the changes then I can't see any problem with going > > ahead > > now. > > > > Just to confirm one thing, are the changes going to be backward > > compatible, > > i.e. would SCDL that works today keep on working after the changes are > > done? > > > > ...ant > > >
