river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregg Wonderly <gr...@wonderly.org>
Subject Re: Standard Annotations for Jini Deployment (Was: Extras (Was: PGP))
Date Thu, 14 Oct 2010 21:38:49 GMT
On 10/14/2010 11:04 AM, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 11:10, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
>> The same service can then be deployed into other containers if those containers
>> support the River standard mechanisms by looking at deployed service classes for
>> an interface/abstract class and then calling methods appropriately.
>>
>> Any suggestions on what kind of API we need?  I have some thoughts, but perhaps
>> others have already done this themselves?
>>
>> Gregg Wonderly
>
> The one thought I have is that we should probably favour a set of
> annotations (a-la-EJB) rather than a service interface.

What I am trying to think about regarding annotations, is the static 
"information" annotations provide vs some of the dynamic information that flows 
between services and containers.

Maybe you (and others) can elaborate a bit on how you view annotations being 
used in River?

Using it to mark methods for particular uses, as you might use an interface, can 
work in many cases, but specific information returned from methods needs to 
match the expectations of the receiver, and so I worry that some aspects of 
annotations are not as concrete as might be necessary.

The other issue for me, is that sometimes people overuse annotations to try and 
fit existing code into a new use, and end up with a layer of meta-control, that 
would better be expressed in a proxy/delegate object to keep it out of view of 
places where it doesn't matter.

But, please let me know your view and everyone else can jump in with their ideas 
to help get something going.

Gregg Wonderly

Mime
View raw message