IMHO, there is a minor difference that may explain it. JavaType should be used when the object might be a compiled java type vs when you have the source code of a Java type (JavaSource). In practice they don't differ much but afaik this was the main difference.

PS: Roaster does not support parsing of compiled java types yet, but the model is ready for this feature when it becomes available.

Em 13/03/2015, às 18:19, Antonio Goncalves <antonio.mailing@gmail.com> escreveu:

Hi all,

I am having a look at some code and realize that I don't understand the subtle difference between JavaType and JavaSource in certain cases. In some visitor code (see below), I see :

JavaType<?> javaType = resource.getJavaType();

And other times I see :

JavaSource<?> javaSource = javaResource.getJavaType();

So I look at the code. JavaSource extends from JavaType, adds one method, and then they both implement similar interfaces (JavaDocCapable vs JavaDocCapableSource).

So, in the following example, why use JavaSource instead of JavaType ?

Thanks

Antonio

 @Override

            public void visit(VisitContext context, JavaResource resource)

            {

               try

               {

                  JavaType<?> javaType = resource.getJavaType();

                  if (javaType.isClass() && !javaType.hasAnnotation(Entity.class) javaSource.hasAnnotation(MappedSuperclass.class))

                  {

                     classes.add(resource);

                  }

               }

               catch (FileNotFoundException e)

               {

                  // ignore

               }

            }

--

Antonio Goncalves 
Software architect and Java Champion

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev