Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cdi-dev-request@lists.jboss.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
cdi-dev-owner@lists.jboss.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cdi-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory (Mark Struberg)
2. Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
(Antoine Sabot-Durand)
3. Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
(Romain Manni-Bucau)
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:58:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
<antoine@sabot-durand.net>
Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Message-ID: <421014798.1728352.1478537884045@mail.yahoo.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
LieGrue,
strub
On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Hello Antoine,
>
>
>concurrency-utilities use ContextFactory for something pretty close (a proxying adding spec features over invocations) which is less "cglib-like" than "Enhancer" so I'd like to keep Factory. In the list InterceptionFactory looks clear enough. We neevr speak of business method anymore I think so it would add a difficulty for something very useful to go that deep in the naming I think.
>
>
>
>Romain Manni-Bucau
>@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>
>2016-11-07 15:44 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@sabot-durand.net>:
>
>Hi all,
>>
>>
>>In my last review for CDI-580 (https://github.com/cdi-spec/ cdi/pull/315), I removed all reference to proxies in Javadoc and spec doc following various feedback.
>>So now the name of the interface is the only one dealing with Proxy, so we really need to find it a new name.
>>I listed some proposal in PR 315:
>>- InstanceEnhancer (short but not very clear)
>>- BusinessMethodInvocationFactor y (more exact from spec pov, but is it clear from user pov?)
>>- InterceptionFactory (cleared from user pov and near our initial name)
>>- InterceptionEnhancer
>>
>>
>>Feedback and other names are welcome.
>>
>>
>>Antoine
>>______________________________ _________________
>>cdi-dev mailing list
>>cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>>https://lists.jboss.org/ mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>>
>>Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/ licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cdi-dev mailing list
>cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>
>Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html ). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 13:24:28 +0000
From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@sabot-durand.net>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rmannibucau@gmail.com>
Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Message-ID:
<CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=u_Xfhs48tUcBCOw_TiAw@mail. gmail.com >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
+1 for InterceptionFactory as well. I change my PR with this name.
Romain, for the record, mentioning "business method invocation" and
paragraph 7.2 is the only mean to bind this feature to the spec without
mentioning implementation specific stuff like proxies. That's why the
javadoc and text for this new section lack clarity. In other word we lack a
simple name for instances on which "methods invocation" are "business
methods invocation".
Antoine
On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:58 PM Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Hello Antoine,
> >
> >
> >concurrency-utilities use ContextFactory for something pretty close (a
> proxying adding spec features over invocations) which is less "cglib-like"
> than "Enhancer" so I'd like to keep Factory. In the list
> InterceptionFactory looks clear enough. We neevr speak of business method
> anymore I think so it would add a difficulty for something very useful to
> go that deep in the naming I think.
> >
> >
> >
> >Romain Manni-Bucau
> >@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
> >
> >2016-11-07 15:44 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@sabot-durand.net
> >:
> >
> >Hi all,
> >>
> >>
> >>In my last review for CDI-580 (https://github.com/cdi-spec/
> cdi/pull/315), I removed all reference to proxies in Javadoc and spec doc
> following various feedback.
> >>So now the name of the interface is the only one dealing with Proxy, so
> we really need to find it a new name.
> >>I listed some proposal in PR 315:
> >>- InstanceEnhancer (short but not very clear)
> >>- BusinessMethodInvocationFactor y (more exact from spec pov, but is it
> clear from user pov?)
> >>- InterceptionFactory (cleared from user pov and near our initial name)
> >>- InterceptionEnhancer
> >>
> >>
> >>Feedback and other names are welcome.
> >>
> >>
> >>Antoine
> >>______________________________ _________________
> >>cdi-dev mailing list
> >>cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >>https://lists.jboss.org/ mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >>
> >>Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/
> licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the
> provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent
> in such information.
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >cdi-dev mailing list
> >cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
> >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
> >
> >Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html ). For all other ideas
> provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other
> intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/ 20161108/efa4663c/attachment- 0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:28:27 +0100
From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@sabot-durand.net>
Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org>
Message-ID:
<CACLE=7N-q9Uk9F2JuAU9f4T5wb8u26MMJ_ >LbNNhd1LkeQxvcWg@mail.gmail. com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine@sabot-durand.net>:
> +1 for InterceptionFactory as well. I change my PR with this name.
>
> Romain, for the record, mentioning "business method invocation" and
> paragraph 7.2 is the only mean to bind this feature to the spec without
> mentioning implementation specific stuff like proxies. That's why the
> javadoc and text for this new section lack clarity. In other word we lack a
> simple name for instances on which "methods invocation" are "business
> methods invocation".
>
>
Agree and it fits the spec but since EJB I never heard any developer (not
developping weld or openwebbeans) using this term so for the API it would
be rude IMHO - was the point, nothing more.
> Antoine
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:58 PM Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hello Antoine,
>> >
>> >
>> >concurrency-utilities use ContextFactory for something pretty close (a
>> proxying adding spec features over invocations) which is less "cglib-like"
>> than "Enhancer" so I'd like to keep Factory. In the list
>> InterceptionFactory looks clear enough. We neevr speak of business method
>> anymore I think so it would add a difficulty for something very useful to
>> go that deep in the naming I think.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Romain Manni-Bucau
>> >@rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory
>> >
>> >2016-11-07 15:44 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <
>> antoine@sabot-durand.net>:
>> >
>> >Hi all,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>In my last review for CDI-580 (https://github.com/cdi-spec/
>> cdi/pull/315), I removed all reference to proxies in Javadoc and spec doc
>> following various feedback.
>> >>So now the name of the interface is the only one dealing with Proxy, so
>> we really need to find it a new name.
>> >>I listed some proposal in PR 315:
>> >>- InstanceEnhancer (short but not very clear)
>> >>- BusinessMethodInvocationFactor y (more exact from spec pov, but is it
>> clear from user pov?)
>> >>- InterceptionFactory (cleared from user pov and near our initial name)
>> >>- InterceptionEnhancer
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Feedback and other names are welcome.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Antoine
>> >>______________________________ _________________
>> >>cdi-dev mailing list
>> >>cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> >>https://lists.jboss.org/ mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> >>
>> >>Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
>> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/
>> licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the
>> provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent
>> in such information.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >cdi-dev mailing list
>> >cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
>> >https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
>> >
>> >Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the
>> code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/
>> licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list,
>> the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights
>> inherent in such information.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/cdi-dev/attachments/ 20161108/c6e8a845/attachment. html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
cdi-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/cdi-dev
Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html ). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 72, Issue 5
**************************************