On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Simon Laws <[email protected]> wrote: > ...snip >> >> ComponentReference: The component-level reference configuration >> Reference: The componentType-level reference definition >> Binding: The binding configuration >> > > If we have to add extra text here to clarify what each of the methods > returns why don't we add that text (or something contraction of it) to > the method name itself? I don't think that less is more in this case. > I don't think matching the assembly model interface is necessarily an > advantage as I don't find component.getService().getService() > particularly clear either. > > I can live with... > > getComponentReferenceInterfaceContract() > getBindingInterfaceContract() > > Can we have the following though. > > getComponentTypeReferenceInterfaceContract() > > or even > > getImplementationReferenceInterfaceContract() > > or similar > > Regards > > Simon >
+1 on those comments, getImplementationReferenceInterfaceContract is long but its much clearer. ...ant
