On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > I found out the interface names very confusing. Can we rename them first? > For example, > InvokerAsync --> AsyncInvoker > InvokerAsyncResponse --> AsyncResponseInvoker > InvokerAsyncRequest --> AsyncRequestInvoker
Sounds OK to me. > The other thing is that we now have so many different flavors of the message > handlers. Maybe we can find ways to consolidate/simplify them: > Interceptor/Invoker (dealing with request/response/fault in the sync > fashion) > RequestProcessor/ResponseProcessor/FaultProcessor (dealing with > request/response/fault in the async fashion) I agree it's pretty complex at the moment. The new async stuff has purposely been kept separate from the existing interface to 1/ allow for improvement without breaking the existing sync code 2/ allow for improvement without breaking the existing, but separate, async code. So I think the the thing to do is give it a few more days and then take a step back, see what's working, and then we can decide how we actually want to factor it. Simon -- Apache Tuscany committer: tuscany.apache.org Co-author of a book about Tuscany and SCA: tuscanyinaction.com
