You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@isis.apache.org by "Dan Haywood (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2010/12/22 16:35:01 UTC

[jira] Created: (ISIS-67) Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel

Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Key: ISIS-67
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67
             Project: Isis
          Issue Type: Improvement
            Reporter: Dan Haywood
            Priority: Minor


Previously we had JavaReflector and JavaSpecification all within metamodel.  These were moved out into core.progmodel and defaults.progmodel.  This was a mistake though.  
- The FacetFactory implementations should live in core.progmodel
- the default set of FacetFactorys should be defined in defaults.progmodel.
- However, the JavaReflector represents a system component that defines a mechanism for building the metamodel; this won't vary by programming model
- the JavaSpecification represents a system type (cf java.lang.Class); this won't vary by programming model either.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


[jira] [Closed] (ISIS-67) Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel

Posted by "Dan Haywood (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Dan Haywood closed ISIS-67.
---------------------------


> Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ISIS-67
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67
>             Project: Isis
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core: MetaModel
>            Reporter: Dan Haywood
>            Assignee: Dan Haywood
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 0.1.2-incubating
>
>
> Previously we had JavaReflector and JavaSpecification all within metamodel.  These were moved out into core.progmodel and defaults.progmodel.  This was a mistake though.  
> - The FacetFactory implementations should live in core.progmodel
> - the default set of FacetFactorys should be defined in defaults.progmodel.
> - However, the JavaReflector represents a system component that defines a mechanism for building the metamodel; this won't vary by programming model
> - the JavaSpecification represents a system type (cf java.lang.Class); this won't vary by programming model either.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

[jira] Updated: (ISIS-67) Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel

Posted by "Dan Haywood (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Dan Haywood updated ISIS-67:
----------------------------

      Component/s: Core: MetaModel
    Fix Version/s: 0.1.0-incubating

> Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ISIS-67
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67
>             Project: Isis
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core: MetaModel
>            Reporter: Dan Haywood
>            Assignee: Dan Haywood
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 0.1.0-incubating
>
>
> Previously we had JavaReflector and JavaSpecification all within metamodel.  These were moved out into core.progmodel and defaults.progmodel.  This was a mistake though.  
> - The FacetFactory implementations should live in core.progmodel
> - the default set of FacetFactorys should be defined in defaults.progmodel.
> - However, the JavaReflector represents a system component that defines a mechanism for building the metamodel; this won't vary by programming model
> - the JavaSpecification represents a system type (cf java.lang.Class); this won't vary by programming model either.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


[jira] Resolved: (ISIS-67) Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel

Posted by "Dan Haywood (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Dan Haywood resolved ISIS-67.
-----------------------------

    Resolution: Fixed

rev 1051971.

> Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ISIS-67
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67
>             Project: Isis
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core: MetaModel
>            Reporter: Dan Haywood
>            Assignee: Dan Haywood
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 0.1.0-incubating
>
>
> Previously we had JavaReflector and JavaSpecification all within metamodel.  These were moved out into core.progmodel and defaults.progmodel.  This was a mistake though.  
> - The FacetFactory implementations should live in core.progmodel
> - the default set of FacetFactorys should be defined in defaults.progmodel.
> - However, the JavaReflector represents a system component that defines a mechanism for building the metamodel; this won't vary by programming model
> - the JavaSpecification represents a system type (cf java.lang.Class); this won't vary by programming model either.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


[jira] Assigned: (ISIS-67) Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel

Posted by "Dan Haywood (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>.
     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Dan Haywood reassigned ISIS-67:
-------------------------------

    Assignee: Dan Haywood

> Move JavaReflector and JavaSpecification back from default.progmodel and core.progmodel and back into metamodel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ISIS-67
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-67
>             Project: Isis
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core: MetaModel
>            Reporter: Dan Haywood
>            Assignee: Dan Haywood
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 0.1.0-incubating
>
>
> Previously we had JavaReflector and JavaSpecification all within metamodel.  These were moved out into core.progmodel and defaults.progmodel.  This was a mistake though.  
> - The FacetFactory implementations should live in core.progmodel
> - the default set of FacetFactorys should be defined in defaults.progmodel.
> - However, the JavaReflector represents a system component that defines a mechanism for building the metamodel; this won't vary by programming model
> - the JavaSpecification represents a system type (cf java.lang.Class); this won't vary by programming model either.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.