Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Antoine Sabot-Durand
Administrator
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)
- BusinessMethodInvocationFactory (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
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Romain Manni-Bucau
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 BlogGithub | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory

2016-11-07 15:44 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>:
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)
- BusinessMethodInvocationFactory (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
[hidden email]
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
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Mark Struberg
InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.


LieGrue,
strub



On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>[hidden email]
>>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
>[hidden email]
>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
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Antoine Sabot-Durand
Administrator
+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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.


LieGrue,
strub



On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>[hidden email]
>>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
>[hidden email]
>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
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Romain Manni-Bucau

2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>:
+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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.


LieGrue,
strub



On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>[hidden email]
>>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
>[hidden email]
>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
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Werner Keil-2
In reply to this post by Antoine Sabot-Durand
+1 for InterceptionFactory, too.
It sounds simpler.

Werner


On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:29 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

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
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
        <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.


LieGrue,
strub



On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>[hidden email]
>>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
>[hidden email]
>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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>,  Romain Manni-Bucau
        <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> >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
> >>[hidden email]
> >>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
> >[hidden email]
> >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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <CACLE=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>:

> +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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >
>> >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
>> >>[hidden email]
>> >>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
>> >[hidden email]
>> >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
[hidden email]
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
**************************************


_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

John Ament

If the only use case is for inceptors, I agree to InterceptionFactory.




From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> on behalf of Werner Keil <[hidden email]>
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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

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
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
        <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.


LieGrue,
strub



On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>[hidden email]
>>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
>[hidden email]
>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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>,  Romain Manni-Bucau
        <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> >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
> >>[hidden email]
> >>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
> >[hidden email]
> >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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <CACLE=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>:

> +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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >
>> >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
>> >>[hidden email]
>> >>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
>> >[hidden email]
>> >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
[hidden email]
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
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Antoine Sabot-Durand
Administrator

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM John Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

If the only use case is for inceptors, I agree to InterceptionFactory.

What other use case you are thinking of John?


 


From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> on behalf of Werner Keil <[hidden email]>
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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

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
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
        <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.


LieGrue,
strub



On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>[hidden email]
>>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
>[hidden email]
>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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>,  Romain Manni-Bucau
        <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> >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
> >>[hidden email]
> >>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
> >[hidden email]
> >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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <CACLE=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>:

> +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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >
>> >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
>> >>[hidden email]
>> >>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
>> >[hidden email]
>> >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
[hidden email]
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
[hidden email]
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
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

John Ament

I can't think of any, just want to make sure no one else was.




From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:04 PM
To: John Ament; cdi-dev
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
 

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM John Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

If the only use case is for inceptors, I agree to InterceptionFactory.

What other use case you are thinking of John?


 


From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> on behalf of Werner Keil <[hidden email]>
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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

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
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
        <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.


LieGrue,
strub



On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>[hidden email]
>>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
>[hidden email]
>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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Mark Struberg <[hidden email]>,  Romain Manni-Bucau
        <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> [hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> >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
> >>[hidden email]
> >>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
> >[hidden email]
> >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 <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
        <CACLE=[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>:

> +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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> [hidden email]> 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 <
>> [hidden email]>:
>> >
>> >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
>> >>[hidden email]
>> >>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
>> >[hidden email]
>> >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
[hidden email]
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
[hidden email]
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.

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
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Emily Jiang
I looked at the methods under *InterceptionFactory*. To me, it sounds better to rename it to InterceptorConfigurator as it has .configure() plus it configures or wraps the classes.

Thoughts?

Many thanks,
Emily
===========================
Emily Jiang
WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead

 
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278

Email: [hidden email]
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB




From:        John Ament <[hidden email]>
To:        Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>, cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Date:        08/11/2016 17:17
Subject:        Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
Sent by:        [hidden email]




I can't think of any, just want to make sure no one else was.





From: Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:04 PM
To:
John Ament; cdi-dev
Subject:
Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

 

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM John Ament <john.ament@...> wrote:
If the only use case is for inceptors, I agree to InterceptionFactory.

What other use case you are thinking of John?


 



From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> on behalf of Werner Keil <werner.keil@...>
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, <[hidden email]> wrote:
Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
       
[hidden email]

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
       
[hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
       
[hidden email]

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@...>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Romain Manni-Bucau <
rmannibucau@...>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
       <
[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <
[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <
421014798.1728352.1478537884045@...>
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@...> 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 <
[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>
[hidden email]
>>
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
>
[hidden email]
>
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 <
[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Mark Struberg <
struberg@...>,  Romain Manni-Bucau
       <
rmannibucau@...>
Cc: cdi-dev <
[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
       <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=
u_Xfhs48tUcBCOw_TiAw@...>
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@...> wrote:

> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>
rmannibucau@...> 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 <
[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> >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
> >>
[hidden email]
> >>
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
> >
[hidden email]
> >
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@...>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <
[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <
[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
       <CACLE=
[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <
[hidden email]>:

> +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@...> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>
rmannibucau@...> 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 <
>>
[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> >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
>> >>
[hidden email]
>> >>
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
>> >
[hidden email]
>> >
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

[hidden email]
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

[hidden email]
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.

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
[hidden email]
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.

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Emily Jiang
Small correction: InterceptionConfigurator is what I suggested (not InterceptorConfigurator).

Many thanks,
Emily
===========================
Emily Jiang
WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead

 
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278

Email: [hidden email]
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB




From:        Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To:        John Ament <[hidden email]>
Cc:        cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Date:        14/11/2016 10:43
Subject:        Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
Sent by:        [hidden email]




I looked at the methods under *InterceptionFactory*. To me, it sounds better to rename it to InterceptorConfigurator as it has .configure() plus it configures or wraps the classes.

Thoughts?


Many thanks,
Emily
===========================
Emily Jiang
WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead


MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278

Email: [hidden email]
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB





From:        
John Ament <[hidden email]>
To:        
Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>, cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Date:        
08/11/2016 17:17
Subject:        
Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
Sent by:        
[hidden email]




I can't think of any, just want to make sure no one else was.





From:
Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:04 PM
To:
John Ament; cdi-dev
Subject:
Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

 

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM John Ament <
john.ament@...> wrote:
If the only use case is for inceptors, I agree to InterceptionFactory.

What other use case you are thinking of John?


 



From:
[hidden email] <[hidden email]> on behalf of Werner Keil <werner.keil@...>
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, <
[hidden email]> wrote:
Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
     
[hidden email]

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
     
[hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
     
[hidden email]

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@...>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Romain Manni-Bucau <
rmannibucau@...>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
      <
[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <
[hidden email]>
Message-ID: <
421014798.1728352.1478537884045@...>
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@...> 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 <
[hidden email]>:
>
>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
>>
[hidden email]
>>
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
>
[hidden email]
>
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 <
[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Mark Struberg <
struberg@...>,  Romain Manni-Bucau
      <
rmannibucau@...>
Cc: cdi-dev <
[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
      <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=
u_Xfhs48tUcBCOw_TiAw@...>
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@...> wrote:

> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>
rmannibucau@...> 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 <
[hidden email]
> >:
> >
> >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
> >>
[hidden email]
> >>
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
> >
[hidden email]
> >
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@...>
Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <
[hidden email]>
Cc: cdi-dev <
[hidden email]>
Message-ID:
      <CACLE=
[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand <
[hidden email]>:

> +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@...> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>
rmannibucau@...> 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 <
>>
[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> >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
>> >>
[hidden email]
>> >>
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
>> >
[hidden email]
>> >
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

[hidden email]
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

[hidden email]
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.

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
[hidden email]

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.

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
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.

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Martin Kouba
Maybe we could switch back to "wrapper", i.e. something like
InterceptionWrapperFactory so that it's clear that the final object is
actually just a wrapper of the original instance that handles interception.

Martin

Dne 14.11.2016 v 12:10 Emily Jiang napsal(a):

> Small correction: *InterceptionConfigurator *is what I suggested (not
> InterceptorConfigurator).
>
> Many thanks,
> Emily
> ===========================
> Emily Jiang
> WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead
>
> MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
> Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>
>
>
>
> From:        Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> To:        John Ament <[hidden email]>
> Cc:        cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
> Date:        14/11/2016 10:43
> Subject:        Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for
> InterceptorProxyFactory
> Sent by:        [hidden email]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I looked at the methods under *InterceptionFactory*. To me, it sounds
> better to rename it to *InterceptorConfigurator *as it has .configure()
> plus it configures or wraps the classes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Many thanks,
> Emily
> ===========================
> Emily Jiang
> WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead
>
> MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
> Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>
>
>
>
> From:        John Ament <[hidden email]>
> To:        Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>, cdi-dev
> <[hidden email]>
> Date:        08/11/2016 17:17
> Subject:        Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> Sent by:        [hidden email]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I can't think of any, just want to make sure no one else was.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> From:* Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>*
> Sent:* Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:04 PM*
> To:* John Ament; cdi-dev*
> Subject:* Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM John Ament
> <_john.ament@spartasystems.com_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> wrote:
> If the only use case is for inceptors, I agree to InterceptionFactory.
>
> What other use case you are thinking of John?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> From:* [hidden email].org_
> <mailto:[hidden email]><[hidden email].org_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> on behalf of Werner Keil
> <_werner.keil@gmail.com_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>*
> 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, <[hidden email].org_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
>       [hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> 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
>       [hidden email].org_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       [hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
> 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@yahoo.de_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Romain Manni-Bucau <_rmannibucau@gmail.com_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
>       <_antoine@sabot-durand.net_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email].com_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> 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@gmail.com_ <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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@sabot-durand.net_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>
>>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
>>>[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>_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
>>[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>_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@sabot-durand.net_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Mark Struberg <_struberg@yahoo.de_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>,
>  Romain Manni-Bucau
>       <_rmannibucau@gmail.com_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Message-ID:
>
> <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=[hidden email].com_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> 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@yahoo.de_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> _rmannibucau@gmail.com_ <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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@sabot-durand.net_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> >:
>> >
>> >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
>> >>[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> >>_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
>> >[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> >_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@gmail.com_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <_antoine@sabot-durand.net_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Message-ID:
>
> <CACLE=[hidden email].com_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand
> <_antoine@sabot-durand.net_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>> +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@yahoo.de_
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> _rmannibucau@gmail.com_ <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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@sabot-durand.net_ <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>>> >
>>> >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
>>> >>[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >>_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
>>> >[hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> >_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_
> [hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>_
> __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_
> [hidden email].org_ <mailto:[hidden email]>_
> __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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> [hidden email].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.
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU_______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> 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.
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> 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.
>

--
Martin Kouba
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
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.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory

Emily Jiang
InterceptionWrapperFactory sounds better than the InterceptionFactory.

Many thanks,
Emily
===========================
Emily Jiang
WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead

 
MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278

Email: [hidden email]
Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB




From:        Martin Kouba <[hidden email]>
To:        Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:        cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
Date:        15/11/2016 10:22
Subject:        Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
Sent by:        [hidden email]




Maybe we could switch back to "wrapper", i.e. something like
InterceptionWrapperFactory so that it's clear that the final object is
actually just a wrapper of the original instance that handles interception.

Martin

Dne 14.11.2016 v 12:10 Emily Jiang napsal(a):
> Small correction: *InterceptionConfigurator *is what I suggested (not
> InterceptorConfigurator).
>
> Many thanks,
> Emily
> ===========================
> Emily Jiang
> WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead
>
> MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
> Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>
>
>
>
> From:        Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> To:        John Ament <[hidden email]>
> Cc:        cdi-dev <[hidden email]>
> Date:        14/11/2016 10:43
> Subject:        Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for
> InterceptorProxyFactory
> Sent by:        [hidden email]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I looked at the methods under *InterceptionFactory*. To me, it sounds
> better to rename it to *InterceptorConfigurator *as it has .configure()
> plus it configures or wraps the classes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Many thanks,
> Emily
> ===========================
> Emily Jiang
> WebSphere Application Server, CDI Development Lead
>
> MP 211, DE3A20, Winchester, Hampshire, England, SO21 2JN
> Phone:  +44 (0)1962 816278  Internal: 246278
>
> Email: [hidden email]
> Lotus Notes: Emily Jiang/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>
>
>
>
> From:        John Ament <[hidden email]>
> To:        Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>, cdi-dev
> <[hidden email]>
> Date:        08/11/2016 17:17
> Subject:        Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> Sent by:        [hidden email]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I can't think of any, just want to make sure no one else was.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> From:* Antoine Sabot-Durand <[hidden email]>*
> Sent:* Tuesday, November 8, 2016 12:04 PM*
> To:* John Ament; cdi-dev*
> Subject:* Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM John Ament
> <_john.ament@spartasystems.com_ <
mailto:john.ament@...>>
> wrote:
> If the only use case is for inceptors, I agree to InterceptionFactory.
>
> What other use case you are thinking of John?
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> From:* [hidden email].org_
> <
[hidden email]><[hidden email].org_
> <
[hidden email]>> on behalf of Werner Keil
> <_werner.keil@gmail.com_ <
mailto:werner.keil@...>>*
> 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, <[hidden email].org_
> <
[hidden email]>> wrote:
> Send cdi-dev mailing list submissions to
>       [hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>
>
> 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
>       [hidden email].org_
> <
[hidden email]>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>       [hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>
>
> 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@yahoo.de_ <
mailto:struberg@...>>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Romain Manni-Bucau <_rmannibucau@gmail.com_
> <
mailto:rmannibucau@...>>, Antoine Sabot-Durand
>       <_antoine@sabot-durand.net_ <
[hidden email]>>
> Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>>
> Message-ID: <[hidden email].com_
> <
mailto:421014798.1728352.1478537884045@...>>
> 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@gmail.com_ <
mailto:rmannibucau@...>> 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@sabot-durand.net_ <
[hidden email]>>:
>>
>>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
>>>[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>
>>>_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
>>[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>
>>_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@sabot-durand.net_
> <
[hidden email]>>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Mark Struberg <_struberg@yahoo.de_ <
mailto:struberg@...>>,
>  Romain Manni-Bucau
>       <_rmannibucau@gmail.com_ <
mailto:rmannibucau@...>>
> Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>>
> Message-ID:
>
> <CABu-YBRhd8UYWck4-fibda_Ykoh-n=[hidden email].com_
> <
mailto:u_Xfhs48tUcBCOw_TiAw@...>>
> 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@yahoo.de_
> <
mailto:struberg@...>> wrote:
>
>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>> _rmannibucau@gmail.com_ <
mailto:rmannibucau@...>> 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@sabot-durand.net_ <
[hidden email]>
>> >:
>> >
>> >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
>> >>[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>
>> >>_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
>> >[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>
>> >_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@gmail.com_
> <
mailto:rmannibucau@...>>
> Subject: Re: [cdi-dev] Finding a new name for InterceptorProxyFactory
> To: Antoine Sabot-Durand <_antoine@sabot-durand.net_
> <
[hidden email]>>
> Cc: cdi-dev <[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>>
> Message-ID:
>
> <CACLE=[hidden email].com_
> <
[hidden email]>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 2016-11-08 14:24 GMT+01:00 Antoine Sabot-Durand
> <_antoine@sabot-durand.net_ <
[hidden email]>>:
>
>> +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@yahoo.de_
> <
mailto:struberg@...>> wrote:
>>
>>> InterceptionFactory sounds fine for me.
>>>
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, 7 November 2016, 15:55, Romain Manni-Bucau <
>>> _rmannibucau@gmail.com_ <
mailto:rmannibucau@...>> 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@sabot-durand.net_ <
[hidden email]>>:
>>> >
>>> >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
>>> >>[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>
>>> >>_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
>>> >[hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>
>>> >_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_
> [hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>_
> __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_
> [hidden email].org_ <
[hidden email]>_
> __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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> [hidden email].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.
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
> 3AU_______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
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.
>
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cdi-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
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.
>

--
Martin Kouba
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
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.



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

_______________________________________________
cdi-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
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.