Hi Jerome,
I think there are two separate issues:
1) The more general annotations for the support of additional
content for negotiation; and
2) The placement of those annotations on classes/methods/parameters.
1)
---
I don't detect any general disagreement over 1, although i would like to
hear more opinions on this by others.
IMHO the Input/Output names are too vague. I would prefer something more
descriptive and accurate, for example ConsumeContent/ProduceContent. The
use of consume/produce also tends to read very nicely when expressed in
sentences (at least in English!) about a resource or a method of a resource.
I guess we could argue over Input vs. Consume till entropy death of the
universe, life is too short :-) the only strong opinion i have is that
the annotation names clearly reflect what they are specified to do so
that developers can make intuitive guesses.
2)
---
IIRC Marc has discussed this before in other email threads. But it has
been a long time. Perhaps you could refresh our memories and summarize
the differences/commonalities/pros/cons of the two positioning
approaches from your perspective?
Paul.
--
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x38109
+33-4-76188109