[cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Tue Nov 8 12:04:05 EST 2016

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM John Ament <john.ament at spartasystems.com>
wrote:

> If the only use case is for inceptors, I agree to InterceptionFactory.
>
What other use case you are thinking of John?

>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* cdi-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org <cdi-dev-bounces at lists.jboss.org>
> on behalf of Werner Keil <werner.keil at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 8, 2016 8:30 AM
> *To:* cdi-dev
>
> *Subject:* Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> +1 for InterceptionFactory, too.
> It sounds simpler.
>
> Werner
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, <cdi-dev-request at lists.jboss.org> wrote:
>
> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
>         cdi-dev at 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 at lists.jboss.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         cdi-dev-owner at 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 at yahoo.de>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
>         <antoine at sabot-durand.net>
> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID: <421014798.1728352.1478537884045 at 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 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 13:24:28 +0000
> From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de>,  Romain Manni-Bucau
>         <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=
> u_Xfhs48tUcBCOw_TiAw at 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 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/efa4663c/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:28:27 +0100
> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <antoine at sabot-durand.net>
> Cc: cdi-dev <cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <CACLE=
> 7N-q9Uk9F2JuAU9f4T5wb8u26MMJ_LbNNhd1LkeQxvcWg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> End of cdi-dev Digest, Vol 72, Issue 5
> **************************************
>
>
> ------------------------------
> NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential,
> proprietary, and/or privileged information which should be treated
> accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this message, and destroy all
> physical and electronic copies. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161108/14b2c1e2/attachment-0001.html 