tuscany-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Simon Laws" <simonsl...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Date Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:51:01 GMT
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:34 PM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Raymond Feng <enjoyjava@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please vote on one of the following five options to define
> > allowsPassByReference property for Invokers. You can vote with multiple
> > choices ordered by your preference.
> >
> > [1] Add "boolean allowsPassByReference()" to the Invoker interface
> > directly
> >
> > [2] Add "boolean allowsPassByReference()" to an optional SPI (either a
> > separate interface or a sub-interface of Invoker)
> >
> > [3] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known
> > properties
> > including "allowsPassByReference", change the Provider.createInvoker()
> to
> > take InvokerProperties. Add "getInvokerProperties()" to the Invoker
> > interface.
> >
> > [4] Define an "InvokerProperties" class to encapsulate known properties
> > including "allowsPassByReference", add "getInvokerProperties()" to the
> > Invoker interface.
> >
> > [5] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known
> > properties
> > including "allowsPassByReference", define an
> "InvocationPropertiesFactory"
> > interface to create "InvokerProperties", add "getInvokerProperties()" to
> > the
> > Invoker interface.
> >
> > My vote is [1], [2].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Raymond
> >
> >
> Not breaking existing extensions is the most important to me so I'm less
> keen on [1]. The current state of the code is [2] which I originally found
> confusing as the method and interface names didn't seem to match -
> PassByValueAware/allowsPassByReference - so i might have preferred
> something
> like  PassByReferenceAware/allowsPassByReference but there has been so
> much
> discussion around it i guess i know what its all about now. We do seem to
> regularly need to add properties like this so i can understand the
> motivation for the InvokerProperties solutions and I'd be fine with doing
> that if thats what everyone wants.
>
> I know this isn't an explicit vote, but there already isn't consensus on
> one
> option so i hope it will be clearer and easier to find consensus by
> stating
> my preferences like this.
>
>   ...ant
>
[2] now [3] later. I like [3] but would like to see us review our SPI more
holistically rather than just applying this pattern in one place.

Simon

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message