On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:34 PM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Please vote on one of the following five options to define > > allowsPassByReference property for Invokers. You can vote with multiple > > choices ordered by your preference. > > > > [1] Add "boolean allowsPassByReference()" to the Invoker interface > > directly > > > > [2] Add "boolean allowsPassByReference()" to an optional SPI (either a > > separate interface or a sub-interface of Invoker) > > > > [3] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known > > properties > > including "allowsPassByReference", change the Provider.createInvoker() > to > > take InvokerProperties. Add "getInvokerProperties()" to the Invoker > > interface. > > > > [4] Define an "InvokerProperties" class to encapsulate known properties > > including "allowsPassByReference", add "getInvokerProperties()" to the > > Invoker interface. > > > > [5] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known > > properties > > including "allowsPassByReference", define an > "InvocationPropertiesFactory" > > interface to create "InvokerProperties", add "getInvokerProperties()" to > > the > > Invoker interface. > > > > My vote is [1], [2]. > > > > Thanks, > > Raymond > > > > > Not breaking existing extensions is the most important to me so I'm less > keen on [1]. The current state of the code is [2] which I originally found > confusing as the method and interface names didn't seem to match - > PassByValueAware/allowsPassByReference - so i might have preferred > something > like PassByReferenceAware/allowsPassByReference but there has been so > much > discussion around it i guess i know what its all about now. We do seem to > regularly need to add properties like this so i can understand the > motivation for the InvokerProperties solutions and I'd be fine with doing > that if thats what everyone wants. > > I know this isn't an explicit vote, but there already isn't consensus on > one > option so i hope it will be clearer and easier to find consensus by > stating > my preferences like this. > > ...ant > [2] now [3] later. I like [3] but would like to see us review our SPI more holistically rather than just applying this pattern in one place.
Simon
