Raymond Feng wrote:
I agree stability/compatibility is important. But we need to have a
good balance here. If we always sacrifice the architectural cleaness
to stability, we may end up with messy SPIs which will confuse our new
users. Especially for SPIs, they are used by extension developers and
embedders and (IMO) these types of users are more willing to use the
latest code base.
Simon Nash wrote:
I thought my proposal (see [1]) was a reasonable compromise that provided
stability without making too much of an architectural mess. There is a
one-time compatibilty hit to introduce the new approach, though. I'd be
interested to know what others think of this.
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ws-tuscany-dev/200802.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> > Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> I'd like to propose two options:
>
> 1) Add methods to Invoker, mirroring what's described in the spec.
>
> interface Invoker {
>
> boolean allowsPassByReference();
>
> // and another similar method which we'll need to handle
> // non-blocking calls
> boolean isOneWay();
>
> }
>
> 2) or if we want to preserve binary compatibility for now, create
> interface Invoker2 extends Invoker {
>
> boolean allowsPassByReference();
>
> boolean isOneWay();
>
> }
>
My preference:
1. (1) above add a method to Invoker, and ask people on our dev and user
mailing lists if they have any issues with it.
2. (2) above and a plan to merge all these Xyz2 interfaces into the main
interfaces in the next major release.
3. Simon's proposal [1], which introduces too much complexity IMHO.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
