Experts,
reading the very interesting recent discussion about the naming of the
client parts, I have to say that I share both opinions: The complexity is
needed to reach the intended feature set and flexibility, but the current
naming is far from being intuitive. Thus, I'd like to propose just names
(not any different implementation or "revolution"). Maybe picking some of
them can solve the problem. Maybe other experts have even better name
suggestions to solve the trouble?
"Engine", "Implementation", "JAXRS" or "REST" -- The major entry point for
separating vendor specifics, providing Client. In fact, "Provider" is great
as it is used by JPA already, it is used already differently in JAX-RS.
"JAXRS" was inspired by "JAXB", which is a smart, static entry point.
"Client" -- A configurable instance ready to access a web resource (provides
invocations).
"Target" -- sorry but 'Link' is just confusing and "WebResource" was not
wanted. Also Link might be needed for Hypermedia API later in this project.
"Invocation", "Call", "MethodExecution" -- Well, obvious.
I think everybody agrees that the separation is needed, so the current
dispute should be easy to solve if more experts share their ideas about the
naming.
About invoke() I understand that it is not smart to need get().invoke() vs.
get().queue(), but I do not see that invoke(invocationFactory.get()) or
queue(invocationFactory.get()) would be any better - but less fluent.
Regards
Markus