Hi Luciano, thanks for the pointer, but I already knew that background.
My question is: why not make every service composite scope? (With the arguments in favor of that approach given in my original post.) Perhaps I misunderstood something? -- Sebastian -----Original Message----- From: Luciano Resende [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Elementary question about Scopes On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Millies, Sebastian <[email protected]> wrote: > I've noticed that I have been making some of my services COMPOSITE scope, > others not, without apparent reason. My question regards the difference > between composite and default (request) scope, disregarding conversations. > > As I see it, either a service implementation maintains state or it does not. > If it does, it must be made composite scope, so as not to lose the state > between > requests, and one must take care of shared access (thread issues) in one's > programming. > > If it does not, it wouldn't matter if it were composite scope, as there would > be no shared state to care about how to access anyway. So it could as well be > made > composite. > > A service being composite scope earns the additional benefit of the init() > method, which can be costly, only being executed once. > > So I would decide to make all my services composite scope by default. > > Would that be wrong? In other words, is there any particular advantage > associated > with default scope services? Any specific runtime properties in Tuscany 1.6 > perhaps? > > -- Sebastian > In the 1.x context, here is a good explanation from Mike: http://tuscany.markmail.org/thread/ubfs2ohn67vv5nw2 In 2.x, the SCA Specs reduced to only support COMPOSITE and STATELESS (default) -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
