Re: Adding an implementation processor

[Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Do we plan to move the ImplementationProcessor framework to the SPI module? 
When I'm working on the databindings, it comes out some requirements for 
extensibility on annotion processing as well.

Thanks,
Raymond

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ignacio Silva-Lepe" <is...@verizon.net>
To: "Tuscany Dev" <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: Adding an implementation processor


In the process of adding support for callbacks, I am adding a 
CallbackProcessor to pick up a callback name and member when visiting a 
field or a method. I added a call to register the CallbackProcessor from 
DefaultBoostrappers's createIntrospector, and I added the following entry to 
META-INF/tuscany/implementation.scdl:

<component name="implementation.Callback">
        <system:implementation.system 
class="org.apache.tuscany.core.implementation.processor.CallbackProcessor"/>
</component>

However, when testing, I see that the CallbackProcessor only seems to be 
called for "system" methods but not for "application" methods. For instance, 
I see that RefererenceProcessor gets called for setMyService but 
CallbackProcessor does not, whereas both processors get called for 
setMonitor.
One thing that I am not sure about is what to do with the component name 
"implementation.Callback" in implementation.scdl, if that has any bearing at 
all.

Any ideas as to what I may be missing to get CallbackProcessor to be called 
for methods like setMyService?

Thanks 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org

Re: Adding an implementation processor

[Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>]

On Aug 10, 2006, at 3:06 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Do we plan to move the ImplementationProcessor framework to the SPI  
> module? When I'm working on the databindings, it comes out some  
> requirements for extensibility on annotion processing as well.
>
A while back this discussion came up and I decided to hold off for  
fear of dragging in too much implementation detail, e.g. the  
extension is specific to Java implementation types. Doing so may  
would drag in things such as PojoComponentType but we may want to do  
this since custom annotations will probably be common.

Jim

> Thanks,
> Raymond
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org