You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> on 2008/03/01 00:44:26 UTC
[VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
OK.
I use org.apache.tuscany.sca.invocation.DataExchangeSemantics for now. The
changes are checked in under r634778.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "ant elder" <an...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:20 AM
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Ant (I assume you are leaning to 2 with some name changes)
>>
>
> DataExchangeSemantics sounds good for me.
>
> Less sure we really need the .feature. in the package name right now if
> the
> SPIs are going to reviewed/tidied in the not to distant future but i don't
> mind so much either way.
>
> ...ant
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Ant (I assume you are leaning to 2 with some name changes)
>
DataExchangeSemantics sounds good for me.
Less sure we really need the .feature. in the package name right now if the
SPIs are going to reviewed/tidied in the not to distant future but i don't
mind so much either way.
...ant
[RESULT] [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
The vote is now finished after more than 72 hours. Here is the result:
Raymond 1, 2
Sebastien 1,2
Simon Nash 3,2
Venkat 2,1
Simon Laws 2,3
Ant (I assume you are leaning to 2 with some name changes)
The result: Option 2 is winning for now.
For naming, I propose that use the following: (The feature package will
contain optional features that can be implemented)
org.apache.tuscany.sca.invocation.feature.DataExchangeSemantics
The term DataExchangeSemantics is copied from the SCA assembly spec.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Laws" <si...@googlemail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:51 AM
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>; <an...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:34 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by Simon Laws <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:34 PM, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>
> 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
Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> 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
Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@apache.org>.
Raymond Feng wrote:
> Isn't option [3] on the vote the same as your [n]?
>
> [3] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known
> properties including "allowsPassByReference", change the
> Provider.createInvoker() to take InvokerProperties. Add
> "getInvokerProperties()" to the Invoker interface.
>
> [n] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known
> properties including "allowsPassByReference", add an "InvokerProperties"
> parameter to the createInvoker() method, and add
> "getInvokerProperties()" to the Invoker interface.
>
My apologies. I overlooked this one (not sure how, but it could
be related to its position in the middle of the list). Yes, this
option is the same as my proposal.
My vote is [3], [2].
Simon
> Thanks,
> Raymond
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Simon Nash" <na...@apache.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:34 PM
> To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
>
>> Raymond Feng 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
>>>
>> Despite my request in [1], the option I proposed in [2] has not been
>> included in this vote. It may be that option [5] was intended to be
>> this option, but as stated here it has significant differences from
>> my proposal.
>>
>> I'd like to request that this vote be withdrawn and restarted with
>> the option I proposed in [2] included. To avoid any possible ambiguity,
>> here is the summary wording for this option.
>>
>> [n] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known
>> properties including "allowsPassByReference", add an "InvokerProperties"
>> parameter to the createInvoker() method, and add "getInvokerProperties()"
>> to the Invoker interface.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28294.html
>> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28086.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Isn't option [3] on the vote the same as your [n]?
[3] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known properties
including "allowsPassByReference", change the Provider.createInvoker() to
take InvokerProperties. Add "getInvokerProperties()" to the Invoker
interface.
[n] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known properties
including "allowsPassByReference", add an "InvokerProperties" parameter to
the createInvoker() method, and add "getInvokerProperties()" to the Invoker
interface.
Thanks,
Raymond
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Nash" <na...@apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:34 PM
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
> Raymond Feng 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
>>
> Despite my request in [1], the option I proposed in [2] has not been
> included in this vote. It may be that option [5] was intended to be
> this option, but as stated here it has significant differences from
> my proposal.
>
> I'd like to request that this vote be withdrawn and restarted with
> the option I proposed in [2] included. To avoid any possible ambiguity,
> here is the summary wording for this option.
>
> [n] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known
> properties including "allowsPassByReference", add an "InvokerProperties"
> parameter to the createInvoker() method, and add "getInvokerProperties()"
> to the Invoker interface.
>
> Simon
>
> [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28294.html
> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28086.html
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by Simon Nash <na...@apache.org>.
Raymond Feng 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
>
Despite my request in [1], the option I proposed in [2] has not been
included in this vote. It may be that option [5] was intended to be
this option, but as stated here it has significant differences from
my proposal.
I'd like to request that this vote be withdrawn and restarted with
the option I proposed in [2] included. To avoid any possible ambiguity,
here is the summary wording for this option.
[n] Define an "InvokerProperties" interface to encapsulate known
properties including "allowsPassByReference", add an "InvokerProperties"
parameter to the createInvoker() method, and add "getInvokerProperties()"
to the Invoker interface.
Simon
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28294.html
[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28086.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by Jean-Sebastien Delfino <js...@apache.org>.
Raymond Feng 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
>
My vote is [1], [2].
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Pass-by-value related SPI change
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
My vote is for [2], [1]
Thanks
- Venkat
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 5:14 AM, Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>