Simon Nash wrote:
I'm wondering whether it would be good to have a vote about this.
Of the five people who have expressed a view on this so far, four
of them have had a different first preference. In the interests
of making progress, I think it might be good to put forward a set
of options and vote to choose between them.
One question of clarification inline below.
...
>> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
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.
> Simon Nash wrote:
By the "next major release" do you mean the 1.2 release that we recently
started discussing, or something else?
Difficult to say until more discussion shapes 1.2 :) I mean major enough
to introduce significant SPI changes.
3. Simon's proposal [1], which introduces too much complexity IMHO.
A few more concerns with that proposal:
- It introduces a breaking change as well.
- An extension developer will have to work with two objects instead of
one. The same technique applied to other extension points (provider,
artifactprocessor, resolver) will double the number of interfaces.
- Ownership and lifecycle of InvokerProperties are unclear. I don't see
why an Invoker should return InvokerProperties if it's already passed to
it. I don't understand when an Invoker should initialize that properties
object.
- Unless I'm missing something, it will require a breaking change to
Provider.createInvoker() to pass an InvokerProperties, or a dependency
on a Tuscany InvokerProperties implementation class.
- If InvokerProperties is an interface then an extension developer can
implement it, and will be broken again as soon as a new property is added.
- The InvokerProperties pattern does not address the bigger issue of all
changes to other extension methods (createInvoker, or just the invoke
method itself).
The fundamental question remains: Can we add methods to an interface
implemented by an extension? and my opinion is:
- Yes, if the change is straightforward and publicly communicated.
- No, if it requires significant changes to extensions. We then need
another version of the interface (like Invoker2) and support both
versions until the two interfaces get merged.
- It should be possible to introduce in a release SPI cleanup, merging,
refactoring and evolutions, at a reasonable pace. I am not saying that
we should do this in the upcoming 1.2 release, but I'd like to see some
SPI cleanup happen in a reasonable timeframe. They have been close to
frozen for 9 months now.
I'll be happy to vote on proposals though.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
