Refactoring common pojo based code out of implementation-java extension, was Re: [2.x] Porting Spring Modules into 2.x

[Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This would be ok for now, but the proper fix would be to have pojo
>> related interfaces available in a separated module that could be
>> exported via OSGi and used by all pojo related extensions (e.g java,
>> ejb, spring). I have started doing that in implementation.pojo, but
>> that still need some more work, and then migrate the related
>> extensions to use it.
>
> Hi Luciano,
>
> That seems to be a good idea, as you said that would also benefit the jee
> modules which also needs the java introspecting techniques.
>
> If you wish, I can go ahead and create a seperate module as you have
> suggested.
> As I am currently working in 2.x, there should not be any issue in taking
> this up.
>

I finally found the work I have initiated for implementation-pojo at
[1]. I'd probably recommend renaming the module to something like
core-pojo to avoid confusion with implementation-pojo sample that we
have in 1.x. Note that the current changes I had to the pojo based
extensions to use implementation-pojo is available as a patch in
TUSCANY-2988 and you might need to review and complete it before
applying these changes to avoid any breakage.

[1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca-contrib/modules/implementation-pojo/
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2988

-- 
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: Refactoring common pojo based code out of implementation-java extension, was Re: [2.x] Porting Spring Modules into 2.x

[ant elder <an...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This would be ok for now, but the proper fix would be to have pojo
>>> related interfaces available in a separated module that could be
>>> exported via OSGi and used by all pojo related extensions (e.g java,
>>> ejb, spring). I have started doing that in implementation.pojo, but
>>> that still need some more work, and then migrate the related
>>> extensions to use it.
>>
>> Hi Luciano,
>>
>> That seems to be a good idea, as you said that would also benefit the jee
>> modules which also needs the java introspecting techniques.
>>
>> If you wish, I can go ahead and create a seperate module as you have
>> suggested.
>> As I am currently working in 2.x, there should not be any issue in taking
>> this up.
>>
>
> I finally found the work I have initiated for implementation-pojo at
> [1]. I'd probably recommend renaming the module to something like
> core-pojo to avoid confusion with implementation-pojo sample that we
> have in 1.x. Note that the current changes I had to the pojo based
> extensions to use implementation-pojo is available as a patch in
> TUSCANY-2988 and you might need to review and complete it before
> applying these changes to avoid any breakage.
>

I agree implementation-pojo doesn't seem like the perfect module name
- its not an implementation and they're not POJOs. Coming up with a
good name might be easier once we can see all the code that goes in
it, so not worry too much about it and use any old name for now. From
what i can glean from whats been said about this is that its just a
way to share some common SCA introspection code so i don't think it
needs to be engineered too much with interfaces and pluggable
implementations and factories etc, and as its not going to have any
new external dependencies it might even just fit as a new package in
the existing spi module.

   ...ant

Re: Refactoring common pojo based code out of implementation-java extension, was Re: [2.x] Porting Spring Modules into 2.x

[Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>]

Thanks Luciano, for information and the patch. Currently I am working on
refactoring
spring modules in 2.x. I should be able to work on this on starting from
next week.

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Ramkumar R <ra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This would be ok for now, but the proper fix would be to have pojo
> >> related interfaces available in a separated module that could be
> >> exported via OSGi and used by all pojo related extensions (e.g java,
> >> ejb, spring). I have started doing that in implementation.pojo, but
> >> that still need some more work, and then migrate the related
> >> extensions to use it.
> >
> > Hi Luciano,
> >
> > That seems to be a good idea, as you said that would also benefit the jee
> > modules which also needs the java introspecting techniques.
> >
> > If you wish, I can go ahead and create a seperate module as you have
> > suggested.
> > As I am currently working in 2.x, there should not be any issue in taking
> > this up.
> >
>
> I finally found the work I have initiated for implementation-pojo at
> [1]. I'd probably recommend renaming the module to something like
> core-pojo to avoid confusion with implementation-pojo sample that we
> have in 1.x. Note that the current changes I had to the pojo based
> extensions to use implementation-pojo is available as a patch in
> TUSCANY-2988 and you might need to review and complete it before
> applying these changes to avoid any breakage.
>
> [1]
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/java/sca-contrib/modules/implementation-pojo/
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-2988
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende>
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>



-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Ramkumar Ramalingam