[seam-dev] Interceptor packaging convention

[Pete Muir]

Agreed, the interceptor is definitely part of the public API - they have to reference the class in their beans.xml.

Having it in the javadoc is no replacement for a decent ref guide, but can be useful for some IMO.

On 20 Apr 2010, at 03:02, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:

> They still have to put it in their beans.xml file in order to enable it; that means they need to know the fully qualified class name :(
> 
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Shane Bryzak <sbryzak at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 20/04/10 02:03, Dan Allen wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>> 
>> Because otherwise, I don't have a clue how putting something in this special intercept package can magically stop people refactoring... If I have
>> 
>> org.jboss.seam.intercept.ConversationBoundaryInterceptor
>> 
>> and someone renames it to
>> 
>> org.jboss.seam.intercept.ConversationEdgeInterceptor
>> 
>> it's just as broken for users...
>> 
>> 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).
> 
> 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.
>> 
>> If there is a refactoring, it must preserve backwards compatibility through delegation (Seam 2 did this to prevent similar breakage in configuration files).
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> -Dan
>>  
>> -- 
>> Dan Allen
>> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
>> Registered Linux User #231597
>> 
>> http://mojavelinux.com
>> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> seam-dev mailing list
>> 
>> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
>> 
>>   
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> seam-dev mailing list
> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
> _______________________________________________
> seam-dev mailing list
> seam-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev