I think we should stick to the "factory" naming convention, since the interface that they implement is called ServiceImplementationFactory. Or, we COULD change the interface name to ServiceImplementationBuilder and then these names would be cool with me.
-----Original Message----- From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 10:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Too late for some naming changes? Been thinking about the names of some services inside HiveMind. Allthough a beta release is not the *best* time to change names, doing so after a 1.0 release is pretty much impossible. Here's some ideas for name changes: hivemind.BuilderFactory --> DefaultBuilder hivemind.lib.EJBProxyFactory --> EJBProxyBuilder hivemind.lib.ProxyFactory -> ProxyBuilder hivemind.lib.PlaceholderFactory -> PlaceholderBuilder hivemind.lib.ServicePropertyFactory -> ServicePropertyBuilder hivemind.lib.SpringLookupFactory -> SpringLookupBuilder I think the term "Builder" works better than "Factory". Also "DefaultBuilder" works well if we make that the default for <invoke-factory>. -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator, Jakarta Tapestry Creator, Jakarta HiveMind http://howardlewisship.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
