You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> on 2008/02/16 03:39:59 UTC
Resolving implementations using componentType model resolvers mistakenly
We have multiple tuscany extensions (implementation types) that has
it's Implementation implemented by extending componentType in order to
re-use some common code. During resolve phase, we have code in
ExtensibleModelResolver to find the proper resolver based on the
interfaces of the implementation we find ComponentType as one of the
interfaces and try to use the componentType model resolver, failing in
some cases where information such as URI is not available.
Should we refactor part of these common code to a base class, and have
the extensions and componentTypeImpl extend from that ? This would
properly map these extensions to use the default model resolver, as it
would not find other unrelated interfaces anymore.
Thoughts ?
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: Resolving implementations using componentType model resolvers mistakenly
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Well, after some more investigation, I realized that Implementation
interface extends ComponentType interface, so the change I proposed
wouldn't solve the issue.
I'm modifying the componentTypeModelResolver to support resolving
componentType side files following the java import/export as discussed
in [1]. Should all these extension implementation artifacts be using
the componentTypeModelResolver instead of the ExtensibleModelResolver
?
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg28021.html
On Feb 15, 2008 6:39 PM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have multiple tuscany extensions (implementation types) that has
> it's Implementation implemented by extending componentType in order to
> re-use some common code. During resolve phase, we have code in
> ExtensibleModelResolver to find the proper resolver based on the
> interfaces of the implementation we find ComponentType as one of the
> interfaces and try to use the componentType model resolver, failing in
> some cases where information such as URI is not available.
>
> Should we refactor part of these common code to a base class, and have
> the extensions and componentTypeImpl extend from that ? This would
> properly map these extensions to use the default model resolver, as it
> would not find other unrelated interfaces anymore.
>
> Thoughts ?
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> Apache Tuscany Committer
> http://people.apache.org/~lresende
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
--
Luciano Resende
Apache Tuscany Committer
http://people.apache.org/~lresende
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org