<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 20/04/10 02:03, Dan Allen wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:n2v19758da1004190903o33823a22nc5d255d9e9c206b2@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Pete Muir <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:pmuir@redhat.com">pmuir@redhat.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Ok.
I *think* I might get what you are talking about now - you are
concerned because the interceptor has to go into the impl/ jar, not the
API jar? And that therefore developers are going to forget that it is
actually part of the public API? Or?<br>
<br>
Because otherwise, I don't have a clue how putting something in this
special intercept package can magically stop people refactoring... If I
have<br>
<br>
org.jboss.seam.intercept.ConversationBoundaryInterceptor<br>
<br>
and someone renames it to<br>
<br>
org.jboss.seam.intercept.ConversationEdgeInterceptor<br>
<br>
it's just as broken for users...<br>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>That's a great point and now I see this so clearly. Interceptors
must be considered part of the public API and a stable API is expected
not to shift (for backwards compatibility reasons). It's public API
because the develop must refer to the interceptors in beans.xml
(according to spec, putting workarounds aside).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't really see it as part of the API - the user never imports the
class, never refers to it in any code. The one place where this might
be relevant is the API Javadoc, which the user might possibly be using
as their reference. I don't think that Javadoc is the right place for
a user to be going though to understand how to use any particular
library, especially in our case with the high standards we have for
reference documentation.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:n2v19758da1004190903o33823a22nc5d255d9e9c206b2@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If there is a refactoring, it must preserve backwards
compatibility through delegation (Seam 2 did this to prevent similar
breakage in configuration files).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So I guess the real issue at hand is...the consistent packaging
of interceptors is really about making the <interceptors> element
as simple as possible by making all the interceptors classes have the
same number of package segments. That need may or may not be contrived.
I haven't stood in the shoes of the developer yet being required to
list out a bunch of interceptor classes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Dan</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
-- <br>
Dan Allen<br>
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>
Registered Linux User #231597<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://mojavelinux.com">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen</a><br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:seam-dev@lists.jboss.org">seam-dev@lists.jboss.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>