"alesj" wrote : "richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | * deployer stages have to be comparable | | | Why? | That's why they are called stages and they are already comparable - how else do you think they fit into our state machine. ;-) | Show me the code how would you compare two DeploymentStage instances? Rule no. 1: Always implement comparable if your object instances represents natural order. "alesj" wrote : "richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | * deployers have to be sorted on deployers chain retrieval (i.e. in method protected synchronized List getDeployersList(String stageName)) | | | Why? | Based on what? | This would be complete waste of time/performance. | I'd use the same trick Java iterators detect ConcurrentModificationException ;) But not for throwing the exception, but for sorting the deployes chain only when necessary. "alesj" wrote : "richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | * sorting agorithm have to take stages, inputs, outputs and relative order into account | | | Why/how stages? | All the rest is already taken into account. | Because deployers in previous stages can provide outputs that are required in next stages deployers (in their inputs). "alesj" wrote : "richard.opalka(a)jboss.com" wrote : | | * different sorting algorithm have to be implemented (domino is wrong because two deployers are not comparable in general) | Sure. | But re-read my previous post: | "alesj" wrote : | | If we have to resort to name comparison it either means: | | * the order of how we process attachments doesn't matter | | * you are describing/ordering your deployers wrong == lack of info | | Sorry, I don't understand this? Could you explain me what do you mean, please. View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4239988#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...