[forge-dev] rest refactoring

Lincoln Baxter, III lincolnbaxter at gmail.com
Fri Mar 9 13:43:59 EST 2012


Hey Paul,

How is this coming along? I only ask because it came up from the tools team
that Forge has trouble detecting apps using the REST @Application()
annotation.

I hope all is well!
~Lincoln

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III <
lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep! Glad to be back, though :)
>
> I think it might be a good idea to watch the performance of this
> operation, though. It could get expensive for large projects, so it might
> be a good idea to only do this check when necessary, and store the result
> in forge project scoped config. We are becoming an IDE :)
>
> Will be complicated I think, or slow...
>
> ~Lincoln
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Paul Bakker <paul.bakker at luminis.eu>wrote:
>
>>  Hi!  Had a good time?
>> The new API looks really good to use here, didn't know we could do that…
>> I wasn't too happy with using configuration for this, because it will break
>> on refactoring, so it's much better is we can do it this way. I will look
>> into it to use it.
>>
>>  Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Feb 27, 2012, at 17:09 , Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
>>
>> Hey Paul!
>>
>> Back from Vaca.
>>
>> My first thought here is that this is excellent use of the Configuration
>> API, but I think currently the way this is written, it depends on the
>> Configuration in order to recognize the fact that there is an application
>> class serving as a REST activator?
>>
>> We could use the JavaParser TreeVisiting API that was just introduced, in
>> order to search project sources and make this determination.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/forge/core/blob/master/shell-api/src/main/java/org/jboss/forge/project/facets/JavaSourceFacet.java#L165
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> ~Lincoln
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Paul Bakker <paul.bakker at luminis.eu>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lincoln,
>>>
>>> I made some progress on refactoring the rest stuff, plus I added the
>>> option to use an Application class instead of web.xml. Because it changed
>>> quite a lot and this is the first time we use the idea of having "nested"
>>> facets it would probably be good if you review before I merge to master.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/forge/core/commit/ec0275a821c6bb3ccf690b55d66816073ba0c328
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think :-)
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lincoln Baxter, III
>> http://ocpsoft.com
>> http://scrumshark.com
>> "Keep it Simple"
>> _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
>



-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
"Keep it Simple"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120309/662ccfb5/attachment.html 


More information about the forge-dev mailing list