Re: [proxy] Refactoring Stub Support...

2013-07-27 Thread Matt Benson
Yep, thanks. ;-) On Jul 27, 2013 1:36 PM, "James Carman" wrote: > I do not plan on making us lose anything. What I am looking for is to > build layers of abstraction. The stuff you have developed right now I > would probably point at the lower-level abstractions that I'm writing > currently. D

Re: [proxy] Refactoring Stub Support...

2013-07-27 Thread James Carman
I do not plan on making us lose anything. What I am looking for is to build layers of abstraction. The stuff you have developed right now I would probably point at the lower-level abstractions that I'm writing currently. Does that make sense? On Saturday, July 27, 2013, Matt Benson wrote: > As

Re: [proxy] Refactoring Stub Support...

2013-07-27 Thread Matt Benson
As I had mentioned, support for some form of dynamic response was the last feature I had wanted to get into the stub module, so I am certainly not opposed to this. I had simply thought to eat dog food by using [functor] interfaces, but that's not a big deal. I have not yet reviewed your latest work

Re: [proxy] Refactoring Stub Support...

2013-07-27 Thread James Carman
I have created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROXY-20 to track the progress of this issue. I have already checked in some code into the branch. On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:54 AM, James Carman wrote: > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > wrote: >> Hi >> >> Isnt it a pa

Re: [proxy] Refactoring Stub Support...

2013-07-27 Thread James Carman
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Hi > > Isnt it a particular kind of interceptor/handler (CompositeInterceptor)? So > does it need so much details? Well, the idea behind "stubbing" is that we would be specifying behavior for very specific method invocation cases (such

Re: [proxy] Refactoring Stub Support...

2013-07-27 Thread Romain Manni-Bucau
Hi Isnt it a particular kind of interceptor/handler (CompositeInterceptor)? So does it need so much details? Le 27 juil. 2013 15:31, "James Carman" a écrit : > I think we need to re-think the stubbing support in proxy2. I'm not > saying I don't like the idea. What I propose is that we introduc

[proxy] Refactoring Stub Support...

2013-07-27 Thread James Carman
I think we need to re-think the stubbing support in proxy2. I'm not saying I don't like the idea. What I propose is that we introduce some lower-level abstractions on which the stubbing is built. For instance, I would propose we introduce a couple of interfaces (or the concept of these interf