David,
I have experimented with factory configuration and used it in one case. But
what I have not done is used the Extender Pattern with the BundleTracker to
initialize services or here configurations. That is a very good point that
I wasn't aware of. I can see how this could probably replace
Hi Alain,
>> Since you are annotating classes that are generated, does the generator has
>> some configurability?
> Yes, it is our own.
Ok, great! That will make things easier.
>> Is it possible for you to instead generate configurations? The config could
>> be a properties file, a JSON, or
David,
You have me lost a bit, See inline for comments/questions
Thanks for your insight
Alain
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:26 PM David Leangen wrote:
>
> Hi Alain,
>
> Since you are annotating classes that are generated, does the generator
> has some configurability?
>
Yes, it is our own.
Is
Hi Alain,
Since you are annotating classes that are generated, does the generator has
some configurability? Is it possible for you to instead generate
configurations? The config could be a properties file, a JSON, or even a class
if necessary.
If this is possible, you could for instance use
Just realized that I could have applied the same pattern to the BaseMapData
and not use the implementation class there either.
Alain
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 8:58 AM Alain Picard wrote:
> To David,
>
> Your comment got me thinking some more about this. And given that I have
> about 25 different
To David,
Your comment got me thinking some more about this. And given that I have
about 25 different variations and each has 3 variants, that would mean
introducing somewhere like 75 "marker" interfaces.
Here's what I did:
A number of key classes are generated and sometimes partly modified by
Hi Alain,
Maybe there is a way of having 25 different interfaces in your API instead?
Or, if they are private, maybe you don’t even need to use services?
Are you able to share your code? Would be helpful to have a little more
information.
Cheers,
=David
> On Aug 12, 2018, at 6:58, Alain
On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 4:10 PM David Leangen wrote:
>
> Hi Alain,
>
> What is it you are trying to accomplish? Is there a reason you are
> exposing the implementation class?
>
> Maybe you know this already, but the “usual” practice is to expose an
> interface in your API (and export the
Hi Alain,
What is it you are trying to accomplish? Is there a reason you are exposing the
implementation class?
Maybe you know this already, but the “usual” practice is to expose an interface
in your API (and export the containing package), and to keep the implementation
private.
Also:
>
