[Design the new POJO MicroContainer] - Re: Field injection
by adrian＠jboss.org
"alesj" wrote : "adrian(a)jboss.org" wrote :
| | This should have a BeanInfo with one property which is a FieldPropertyInfo
| |
| What about if the bean is in ALL or FIELDS mode and the property has just setter or just getter?
| OK, there should be some kind of CombinedPropertyInfo.
|
I don't know, I'm not deep in the implementation details and don't want to be.
I have my own work to do. :-)
If you think there is a policy choice to be made then let
the user decide with a addtional enum value.
Don't mix policy and implementation! :-)
anonymous wrote :
| The real question is, should I also replace the existing AbstractPropertyInfo in AbstractBeanInfo.properties or just in AbstractBeanInfo.propertiesByName?
I know you're probably scared of me telling you did it wrong after the fact,
but now I'll tell you that you are asking a stupid question before the fact. :-)
Isn't it obvious that PropertyInfo is the contract and AbstractPropertyInfo
is an implementation detail?
There should be some refactoring like;
| public abstract class AbstractPropertyInfo implements PropertyInfo { String name }
| public class StandardPropertyInfo extends AbstractPropertyInfo { MethodInfo getter, MethodInfo setter }
| public class FieldPropertyInfo extends AbstractPropertyInfo { FieldInfo field }
|
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4136735#4136735
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4136735
18 years
[Design of JBoss Build System] - Re: Notion of 'compatible-version'?
by wolfc
"heiko.braun(a)jboss.com" wrote : Acceptance test is one thing, but having to release every dependency because of minor version upgrade (which IMO is supposed to be compatible) is not a way to go either.
|
| If you don't favor ranges you could be explicit with compatible versions instead.
Suppose the following:
AS 5.0 depends on EJB3 [1.0,2.0)
EJB3 1.0 depends on MetaData [1.0,2.0)
Current MetaData is 1.0.
Now I release MetaData 1.1 for AS trunk.
scott.startk(a)jboss.org wrote : The mvn release plugin should be recording the versions used, and that version info committed as part of the tag. The release build should effectively be locked to single versions.
In the repo it should have been noted as:
AS 5.0-1 -> EJB3 1.0-1
EJB3 1.0-1 -> MetaData 1.0-1
To update the repo an EJB3 1.0 release must be done:
EJB3 1.0-2 -> MetaData 1.1-1.
At which point AS 5.0-1 -> EJB3 1.0-1 -> MetaData 1.0-1 is reproducable.
Followed by AS 5.0 release:
AS 5.0-2 -> EJB3 1.0-2.
Ivy works that way and so should Maven.
But I don't see how it works with Maven and transitive dependencies.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4136694#4136694
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4136694
18 years
[Design of POJO Server] - Re: Generalizing dependency injection
by scott.stark＠jboss.org
Where I'm at right now is:
- The MappedReferenceMetaDataResolverDeployer creates a mapping of the endpoint ids (ejb/vfspath/ejbName, etc) to a ContainerDependencyMetaData. There still is a layer of mapping with alternative keys as has been talked about here for resolving references, but the output is the unique set of ContainerDependencyMetaData for referenced endpoints.
- The ContainerDependencyMetaData has the set of ResourceInjectionTargetMetaData for references that need the endpoint injected.
- The ContainerDependencyMetaData has the jndi names that references have declared they will lookup rather than inject.
- The ContainerDependencyMetaData has the container name and bean factory which have to be setup by the associated endpoint deployer. The associated container bean also has aliases for the jndi names associated with the endpoint. There can be more than one due to different invokers (ejb2). I assume there is something similar for ejb3, but I'm not that far yet.
Getting this wired up to validate it works in the ejb2/3 deployers is something I'm still working on.
View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4136688#4136688
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4136688
18 years