"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : Is the use of "Adapter" here not potentially confusing, since th .rar is an "Adapter" too? To me, this thing is performing a mapping operation, so how about "ActivationMapper"?
| I'm easy, either is good to me. Not sure it would be confusing though :)
I'm not sure either, but I'd be more sure "Mapper" would not be confusing, so... :)
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4226476#4226476
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4226476
"Kevin.Conner(a)jboss.com" wrote : "tfennelly" wrote : I wonder would it be possible to generalize the interface more? I'm thinking of a situation where the mapping for a particular adapter may need to perform other mappings outside the set layed down here.
| |
| | If we could also extract the provider/listener config into a Map ala the activation config being mapped too, we could then do something like.
|
| I thought of that but we already have another mechanism for the 4.4/trunk to specify other activation properties. The purpose of this is just to map our overrides so I would be happier limiting the mapping to this.
That's true... forgot that... okidoki :)
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4226475#4226475
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4226475
"tfennelly" wrote : I wonder would it be possible to generalize the interface more? I'm thinking of a situation where the mapping for a particular adapter may need to perform other mappings outside the set layed down here.
|
| If we could also extract the provider/listener config into a Map ala the activation config being mapped too, we could then do something like.
I thought of that but we already have another mechanism for the 4.4/trunk to specify other activation properties. The purpose of this is just to map our overrides so I would be happier limiting the mapping to this.
Handling the 4.4/trunk extension within 4.2 is another issue, which I think is what you may be trying to address.
Kev
View the original post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4226468#4226468
Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4226468