commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
Subject RE: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper
Date Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:31:37 GMT
> i would also like to reiterate stephen's warning: if you use interfaces,
> be very sure that you are not going to need to change them in any
> fashion. i would very strongly suggest implementing the key
> ProxyFactory logical interface as an abstract class. this isn't bias (i
> love interfaces when coding applications) but a hard lesson painfully
> learnt. 

Robert,

I understand the concerns here, but I am really torn between changing the
API and leaving it like it is.  IMHO, it is *very* unlikely that a user of
Commons Proxy is even going to implement ProxyFactory on their own.  If I
had to ballpark it, I would be surprised if 1 out of every 100 (I might even
go 1000) people who use Commons Proxy implement ProxyFactory.  That's the
whole point of using Commons Proxy in the first place.  You don't have to
write the proxying logic yourself!  So, what is our target here?  Are we
looking for 100% backward compatibility with *all* projects?  Or, are we
happy with keeping something more like 90% or 95% of our users happy?  Maybe
we could tell them in the documentation that if they have a proxying
technology that they wish Commons Proxy supported that they can submit a
request to the mailing list or into Bugzilla for it and we can take care of
it (of course, any code that gets us going would help).  As long as we
decide between AOP Alliance vs. "rolling our own" interfaces, I'm pretty
happy with the ProxyFactory interface.  Besides, there's really nothing you
can't do with Invokers.  That's sort of the "common denominator."

James 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message