[cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at 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 at yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> rmannibucau at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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-0001.html