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(a)sabot-durand.net&gt;: 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 &gt;cdi-dev(a)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(a)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.

+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(a)yahoo.de&gt; wrote: > InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibucau(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)sabot-durand.net&gt;: > > > >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 > &gt;&gt;cdi-dev(a)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 > &gt;cdi-dev(a)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. > > > > >