Robert, How about this? We provide a "default" implementation which just uses JDK proxies. So, ReflectionProxyFactory would become ProxyFactory and JavassistProxyFactory and CglibProxyFactory would just extend/override it. That way, if we do add a method to ProxyFactory, the subclasses don't necessarily have to override it. The implementations would just use reflection rather than a more advanced proxying technique. ProxyFactory would actually be concrete and not abstract in that case. Does that sound like it would work better? Would that address your concerns with the binary compatibility?
James -----Original Message----- From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 6:18 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [proxy] Moving Proxy to Commons Proper On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 16:35 +0200, Knut Wannheden wrote: > On 10/19/05, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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." > > > > In Eclipse APIs it is common practice that interfaces are never > changed -- hence new interfaces have to be added when new changes are > required -- and abstract classes are used where changes (in form of > new methods) are expected (see > http://www.artima.com/lejava/articles/designprinciples.html). > > As you say the Invokers are the "common denominator". So ProxyFactory > could be implemented as an abstract base class with the > createInvokerProxy() method declared as abstract and the other proxy > factory methods defined in terms of that. Concrete implementaions > would although do best in overriding these other methods for > performance reasons. > > Although, as you say, there are probably not many users who will want > to implement this interface anyways. So maybe it's best left as it is. > > I'm torn on this one. Any other thoughs? there are certain pitfalls associated with deep libraries that are not commonly found elsewhere and are therefore not generally well known amongst other communities. (by deep libraries, i mean libraries that are used by libraries rather than applications.) these issues don't really effect applications or frameworks. we often talk about two different forms of compatibility: semantic and binary. binary compatibility is defined by the java language and concerns when one version of a class can be substitute for another. semantic compatibility means that existing uses don't break when one version of a class is substituted for another. when developing a deep library, compatibility is big issue. since the library will be used by many other libraries and so indirectly by many, many applications, breaking compatibility means disrupting many users who were not aware that they even used your library. this will make you very personally unpopular. due to the number of end users who may be effected by changes in semantics, breaking semantic compatibility is quite a big deal. so, it's usually better to choose delegation and logical interfaces over subclassing frameworks. breaking binary compatibility is a very big deal for deep libraries. by breaking binary compatibility, all users must be forced to choose to have only one version of the library on the classpath. if a user is building an application and require two libraries each of which depends on a different version of your library, this will cause them great pain resulting in great anger. the problem with interfaces is that adding methods breaks binary compatibility. some of the commmons components are amazingly widely distributed. proxy is just starting out but in a year or two, maybe it'll be relied upon by hundreds of open source libraries (as several of the deep commons libraries are). now, imagine having to justify yourself to all those downstream users who use those libraries why you needed to break binary compatibility: this kind of thing really trashes your reputation and the reputation of your component as well as upsetting all those downstream users who'd never even heard of your library before. but, this choice is yours. this is just advice and not a condition :) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
