Concurrency 3.1 injection binding for qualifier and virtual #27340
Conversation
| (XMLMaxAsync ? " (xml)" : " ") + "maxAsync: " + maxAsync + " << " + annotation.maxAsync()); | ||
| (XMLMaxAsync ? " (xml)" : " ") + "maxAsync: " + maxAsync + " << " + annotation.maxAsync(), | ||
| (XMLvirtual ? " (xml)" : " ") + "virtual: " + virtual + " << " + (eeVersion >= 11 ? annotation.virtual() : "Unspecified"), | ||
| (XMLqualifers ? " (xml)" : " ") + "qualifiers: " + toString(qualifiers) + " << " + (eeVersion >= 11 ? toString(annotation.qualifiers()) : "Unspecified")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Even though we don't support these values prior to EE 11, would it be valuable to see if anything unexpected is coming in for them rather than showing Unspecified? I'm wondering if Unspecified could mislead someone who is debugging issues
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If a user compiled their application using EE 11 and used the qualifiers attribute on their service annotation, but then ran with EE 10 I would assume we'd throw a runtime exception when we attempted to load the class containing the annotation. So I don't think we'd ever have any unexpected values coming in via the annotation, but rather we might get values coming in via the deployment descriptor.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I used the word Unspecified since that matches what the injection binding superclass uses when no value was provided. But in this case we could use something like Unsupported to make it clearer why no value was merged.
|
#libby - check headers |
|
Your personal build request is at https://wasrtc.hursley.ibm.com:9443/jazz/resource/itemOid/com.ibm.team.build.BuildResult/_ohsp4rCcEe6cy7FiSuuNuQ Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees. |
Code analysis and actionsDO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT.
|
|
The build KyleAure-27340-20240111-0930 |
Closes #27148 - original PR was split.