On 9/26/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 9/26/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi ! > > > > As I'm working on this new interceptor, I would suggest we rename the > > interceptor name from ChangeLogInterceptor to ChangeLogService, and in > > the same time, find another for the ChangeLogService interface. > > > Np sounds like the being consistent is a good idea. > > One possible idea for what is presently named the ChangeLogService could > be > just ChangeLog so you can name the interceptor the ChangeLogService. > > The reason why I'm pushing this renaming is that every other > > interceptors are named XXXService, not XXXInterceptors. > > > > The other possibility would be to rename all the interceptors to > > XXXInterceptor (and it would be a better move, but sadly a wide > > modification). > > > > Any objection ? > > > No objection here. > > Just a note about future considerations: > > I'm beginning to realize that some subsystems that provide some kind of > service within the server > should be accessible straight from the the DirectoryService. >
I agree! Our server is composed of Interceptors as Services. However it should be a collection of Services and Interceptors using them. For example the Authorization Service can be used by more than one Interceptor (yes we need this in fact.) These "services" present a facade to > an entire subsystem. They may need an interceptor to do their bidding > however not all of them > will need to do that. For example we need a Scheduler service which > probably will not an interceptor > but should be exposed as a top level service so other things can utilize > it. > > Some subsystems like this event log service will need an interceptor and > will need to expose a > facade to the subsystem so other subsystems can utilize it. So subsystems > may or may not > need the insertion of an interceptor into the chain. We need to be clear > about our nomenclature > in the future. If a service like the schema service exists as a facade to > the system accessible > via DirectoryService.getSchemaService() then perhaps it should expose > access to it's interceptor > which can be gotten and added to the chain. > > Perhaps we need an InterceptingService interface which marks true > "services" as needing to insert > an interceptor. This interface can also expose a getter to access the > interceptor of the service. Don't > know but we should start thinking about this for the future? > > Alex > -- Ersin Er http://www.ersin-er.name
