Hi Felix, Thanks for your comments!
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com> wrote: > ...(1) I think the @AdapterMethod annotation should be just called @Adapter. > Having an > annotation on a method is called "...Method" is strange. And maybe it should > be in a separate package. Makes sense, noted. > (2) The AdapterMethodProxyManagerImpl class should verify the methods as > follows... Yeah, good idea, allows for catching problems earlier. > ...(3) Maybe we can find a better name for the AdapterMethodProvider > interface -- something > which is more in line with the AdapterFactory service name. I don't have a better name for now, and the service is really a provider of adapter methods - it's not a Factory of anything. > I am also undecided whether > we need a specific marker interface at all ? Maybe any service having > annotated methods will do ?... I thought about that but it's a bit expensive to check on a large system with a few thousand services, and requiring the AdapterMethodsProvider makes things more explicit and less surprising than allowing any service type to provide adapter methods. Requiring the AdapterMethodsProvider marker also helps for javadocs, webconsole troubleshooting etc. -Bertrand
