> i would also like to reiterate stephen's warning: if you use interfaces, > be very sure that you are not going to need to change them in any > fashion. i would very strongly suggest implementing the key > ProxyFactory logical interface as an abstract class. this isn't bias (i > love interfaces when coding applications) but a hard lesson painfully > learnt.
Robert, I understand the concerns here, but I am really torn between changing the API and leaving it like it is. IMHO, it is *very* unlikely that a user of Commons Proxy is even going to implement ProxyFactory on their own. If I had to ballpark it, I would be surprised if 1 out of every 100 (I might even go 1000) people who use Commons Proxy implement ProxyFactory. That's the whole point of using Commons Proxy in the first place. You don't have to write the proxying logic yourself! So, what is our target here? Are we looking for 100% backward compatibility with *all* projects? Or, are we happy with keeping something more like 90% or 95% of our users happy? Maybe we could tell them in the documentation that if they have a proxying technology that they wish Commons Proxy supported that they can submit a request to the mailing list or into Bugzilla for it and we can take care of it (of course, any code that gets us going would help). As long as we decide between AOP Alliance vs. "rolling our own" interfaces, I'm pretty happy with the ProxyFactory interface. Besides, there's really nothing you can't do with Invokers. That's sort of the "common denominator." James --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
