[forge-dev] automatic dependency detection problem
Lincoln Baxter, III
lincolnbaxter at gmail.com
Sun Feb 12 09:52:48 EST 2012
It's awesome that you've been getting into the Inspectors and
WidgetBuilders! I think that's great!
It sounds like you starting creating a new scaffold because there were some
problems with the existing one.
My question is:
"Are there enough differences between the Faces scaffold and the one that
you are writing, that you think they should be separate?" OR do you think
we should just fix what is wrong with the existing one? (I would lean
toward fixing it, and adding extension points for any places where you want
things to be different :)
What do you think?
I'd love to help you however I can to make this happen.
We usually just use Pull requests and JIRA issues to track this type of
work so that everyone can stay in sync! Sound like something you're
interested in? It's ok that you don't have much time - this is open source!
PS. Which type of database engineering did you use? Forge? How did it work
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Thomas Frühbeck <fruehbeck at aon.at> wrote:
> Hi Lincoln,
> I understand absolutely, that you didn't want to open an _impl_.
> It is important to know, that it's not my fault, that it's not working.
> I do (not) think that your faces plugin is limited:
> No: I am really impressed by the power of the plugin, the integration of
> Metawidget is a great showcase!
> Yes: when trying to apply Forge to an existing persistence model I was
> confronted with some interesting questions :)
> After having applied the reverse engineer to my database, I found that
> the legacy primary keys were not picked up by the system.
> At first I thought, that some minor changes to the templates and the
> widgets would suffice, but then I realized, that the changes would be
> too much distributed all over the impl.
> The options I reviewed so far:
> - redesign the DB: not so bad, but more than one project use the
> entities - very bad
> - accept the (preferred) generation of "id" strings an remap the
> generated ID via JPA-annotations to the physical XXID
> Downside: a lot of legacy code (e.g. HQL statements) to refactor, very
> few tests :/
> - use the PK-names from legacy persistence model so I can reuse legacy code
> a) when importing the legacy model, the scaffold will not use my PK, but
> render the PK as normal fields
> b) when changing only the templates and some widgets, the application
> will break between view and bean layer
> The beauty of Forge is the possibility to continuously use it to develop
> the application.
> In my case it would be kind of generate-repair-use-cycle (which is not
> so much fun) mainly because of the primary key handling.
> So I decided to investigate the situation in more detail and I think
> that I found a kinda viable solution by implementing some changes to the
> inspectors, widgets, templates ....
> I am sure you know what I mean, you did the really big part, isn't it :-)
> That's where I am now and I am really grateful for the insights I got
> into the inner workings of this bunch of brand new technology.
> So I decided to start a new plugin project based on the faces scaffold
> as close as possible, being able to follow your development without
> interrupting your progress. I don't know if and when I can spend enough
> time to get it working.
> In short: after having analyzed the problem I think that the primary key
> handling is to be fixed.
> Forge is a great tool and I think it's worth spending some time on this.
> I have started to do so, and I would be very grateful if you could take
> the time and have a look at it - when it works :-)
> Any remarks, hints appreciated,
> > We intentionally block this module because there should not be direct
> > access to the implementation classes. I know that the current Scaffold
> > is very limited, but I think that in most cases, we can add SPIs and
> > extension points in order to give you access to what you need.
> > We can try to figure out a non-impl specific way to do this depending on
> > what you need. Otherwise we could consider exposing the impl, but I think
> > that should be a last resort.
> > What is it that you are trying to access in the impl, and why?
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
Lincoln Baxter, III
"Keep it Simple"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the forge-dev