axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sanjiva Weerawarana <>
Subject Re: [axis2] [VOTE][PROPOSAL] ServiceLifecycle interface vs. introspecting methods
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:35:09 GMT
Glen Daniels wrote:
> Please explain the difference between "forcing" the user to implement an 
> interface, and "forcing" the user to implement a method that uses Axis2 
> specific classes as arguments?  AFAICS there is none.  The point is that 
> you can't implement "void init(ServiceContext)" without ServiceContext 
> anyway, so it's tied to Axis2 anyway.

Yes, but this is the fundamental diff between Spring and EJBs. I *know* 
there's no difference, but the developer community seems to have a 
preference for just having to implement a method rather than having to 
implement a method *and* flag that by saying "implements x".

Furthermore, its more towards duck typing .. why force people to say "I 
implement x" when they already did that by implementing the method?

> Note that we're NOT suggesting that you MUST implement ServiceLifecycle 
> to be a service implementation, btw!  If you *want* to, it's cleaner 
> than implementing random methods which then get searched for with 
> introspection.

I understand this totally but we are trying to force them by marking it 
deprecated and planning to remove the old approach in v1.3+.

So I'm -1 on it ..

> It's a cleanliness issue, but I'd like to see it fixed.

I'm fine with keeping this issue open for post-1.3 discussion; it doen't 
meet the 1.3 bar for me. Of course my feeling about it is stated above; no 

Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder & Director; Lanka Software Foundation;
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.;
Director; Open Source Initiative;
Member; Apache Software Foundation;
Visiting Lecturer; University of Moratuwa;

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message