We now have 20 fewer tests?
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Ok, I just committed the first round of this:
* Merge *Model into *Bean, all init* and check* methods should be put there
* I created an EventBean from EventModel, but I don't quite understand the
architecture of the Event stuff so, David, I may have broken stuff here
* I removed all the *Constructor stuff
* I removed the xmlAnnotatedItem stuff, and put in an example of how we
could do this with XmlSimpleBean, and adding the common logic higher up the
class hierarchy, for example
protected void initType() {
if (isDefinedInXml()) {
// Do XML init from parsed XML data structure
} else {
// Do init from reflection
}
}
I would like someone to review this architecture (Gavin ;-)...
* Gavin, I tried not to clobber your commits around lifecycle callbacks and
EJB lookup when merging this in. The tests do pass, so if they covered all
cases, then it should be good :-)
Next, I plan to merge the behaviour of fields (inject value from manager),
parameters (inject from manager) and methods (invoke, injecting parameters
from manager) into the reflection layer. I'll also tidy up usage of this
layer across the whole codebase, and add some javadoc. I'll try to commit
this on Thursday.
Pete
On 6 Nov 2008, at 18:43, Pete Muir wrote:
> Continuing with my monologue, once we merge the model into BeanImpl, I
> also want to review the Injectable stuff, I don't think that is quite right,
> it should probably merged into the the annotated* stuff or merged into
> BeanImpl.
>
> I want to do producer methods first, then consider this, as at that point
> I will have a much clearer picture of what is sensible (that was the
> "motivation" for this - I didn't know where I was going well enough
back in
> June).
>
> WDYT?
>
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 10:53, Pete Muir wrote:
>
>> But I still think the abstraction over reflection is useful (annotated*)
>> not least because it encapsulates all the logic re. meta-annotations and
>> fixes the class hierarchy.
>>
>> On 6 Nov 2008, at 10:41, Pete Muir wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, it's on my todo list (to merge model and BeanImpl) to one.
>>>
>>> On 6 Nov 2008, at 06:33, Gavin King wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pete,
>>>>
>>>> would you be able to explain what is motivating the use of a
>>>> "3-layered" approach to the Bean implementations?
>>>>
>>>> I'm finding the resulting parallel class hierarchies really
difficult
>>>> to work with. In particular, I got totally stuck on the implementation
>>>> of MethodConstructor.invoke() for producer methods.
>>>>
>>>> I really think the code would end up a lot more elegant if we
>>>> flattened stuff out into the Bean subclasses...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Gavin King
>>>> gavin.king(a)gmail.com
>>>>
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>>>>
http://hibernate.org
>>>>
http://seamframework.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> webbeans-dev mailing list
>>>> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> webbeans-dev mailing list
>>> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webbeans-dev mailing list
>> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev