It's not a big deal and I'm not good at naming :-). I agree with you that we
should be able to explain it to extension developers for the name we pick
(maybe a good javadoc will help:-).
My understanding is that the SCA spec uses "allowsPassByReference" to
customize the data exchange sementics for remotable interfaces which is the
default to Pass-By-Value.
Line 707, 725, 737 of the Assembly Spec consitently uses the term "data
exchange semantics". So we could use a name like "DataExchangeSemantics".
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r628163 - in /incubator/tuscany/java/sca:
itest/interfaces/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/itest/interfaces/
itest/interfaces/src/test/java/org/apache/tuscany/sca/itest/interfaces/
modules/binding-ejb/src/main/java/org/apache/tuscany/s
Raymond Feng wrote:
How about something like DataPassingStyle or DataPassingStrategy?
This is not a big issue and I would not seriously -1 any name even if you
just called it the XyzStyle but I'd like to understand why we'd use a
different term from the term used in the spec, and if we did, how we would
explain to our users:
(a) why we used a different term for the same concept
or (b) if it's actually a different concept, how different it is from
what's described in the spec, why we needed that new concept, and how it
maps to the concept from the spec.
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
