My preference is to keep PassByValue as the prefix for the following
reasons.
1) The invokers implement this interface only for the cases to enforece
pass-by-value for remotable interfaces. Invocations over local interfaces
(pass-by-reference) don't even care about this flag.
2) The allowsPassByReference() method basically tells if it's safe to pass
data as-is without violating the pass-by-value semantics.
Initially, I was thinking about PassByValueInvoker but I found it a bit
misleading as it doesn't extend from the Invoker interface.
Just my 2c.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r628163 - in /incubator/tuscany/java/sca:
itest/interfaces/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/itest/interfaces/
itest/interfaces/src/test/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/itest/interfaces/
modules/binding-ejb/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/s...
Given that this interface allows an Invoker to implement an
allowsPassByReference method, could we rename PassByValueAware to
PassByReferenceInvoker?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rfeng
Date: Fri Feb 15 12:26:39 2008
New Revision: 628163
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=628163&view=rev
Log:
Add the PassByValueAware as an optional SPI for Invoker/Intercetors to
support Pass-by-value
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
