Hi, The OASIS version of the SCA spec has the same constraint. There is a good article that discusses the differences between coarse-grained and fine-grained services:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-soa-granularity/ BTW, I'm not sure if OSGi services are initially designed to be coarse-grained and loosely-coupled until the recent introduction of OSGi remote services :-). Thanks,, Raymond ________________________________________________________________ Raymond Feng [email protected] Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com ________________________________________________________________ On Sep 14, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Millies, Sebastian wrote: > thanks for the quote. > > Do you think this decision by OSOA well-motivated? After all, e. g. OSGi does > not > make this restriction, and OSGi services are also coarse grained and loosely > coupled. > > -- Sebastian > > > From: Raymond Feng [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 12:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Overloaded methods in Remotable interfaces > > See the following quote from the OSOA SCA assembly spec: > > 702 The style of remotable interfaces is typically coarse grained and > intended for loosely coupled > 703 interactions. Remotable service Interfaces MUST NOT make use of method or > operation > 704 overloading. > > Thanks, > Raymond > ________________________________________________________________ > Raymond Feng > [email protected] > Apache Tuscany PMC member and committer: tuscany.apache.org > Co-author of Tuscany SCA In Action book: www.tuscanyinaction.com > Personal Web Site: www.enjoyjava.com > ________________________________________________________________ > > On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Millies, Sebastian wrote: > > > why does Tuscany 1.6 forbid overloaded methods in Remotable interfaces > and throws a org.apache.tuscany.sca.interfacedef.OverloadedOperationException? > > Is that covered by the specs? As far as I can see, none of the specs on the > page > http://www.osoa.org/display/Main/Service+Component+Architecture+Specifications > suggests this behaviour, and I find it surprising, in particular in view of > the fact that the interface compatibility rules take method signatures into > account. > > -- Sebastian > >
