The naming convention ("Control Type" and "Control Public Interface") sounds
good.
One small thing though. In theory there's nothing to stop you from implementing
multiple interfaces at each stage i.e.
@ControlExtension
public interface Foo extends Abc, Def
Foo, Abc and Def are all interfaces and all have @ControlExtension defined.
And similarly:
@ControlInterface
public interface Bar extends Tuv, Xyz
where Bar, Tuv and Xyz all have @ControlInterface defined.
This is _not_ a typical usage but still the possibility remains.
Typically you want to get the "nearest" @ControlInterface from a given
@ControlExtension. To do this you'd want to follow Class.getInterfaces() on Foo
up the tree until you hit a Class that defines @ControlInterface. But there
could theoretically be multiple of these so when we define the way of getting
to a control public interface from the control extension we should probably
define some API such as:
public Class[] getControlPublicInterfaces();
which will return this list.
In the vast majority of cases I imagine there'd only be 1 element in the array,
but just in case.
Cheers,
Lawrence
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Tam
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:24 PM
> To: Beehive Developers
> Subject: Control concept names
>
>
> Consider a general inheritance chain of interfaces for controls,
> annotated thusly (base interfaces on the bottom):
>
> @ControlExtension public interface Foo <--- this is an interesting
> interface
> @ControlExtension
> .. etc
> @ControlExtension
> @ControlInterface public interface Bar <--- this is an interesting
> interface
> @ControlInterface
> .. etc
> @ControlInterface
>
> There is a BarImpl.jcs present.
>
> This results in the generation of:
>
> class FooBean
> class BarBean
>
> (as well as Bean classes for the intermediary @ControlExtension and
> @ControlInterface interfaces in the chain that I've left nameless).
>
> What do we call these artifacts? Here's a proposal:
>
> When discussing Foo:
> Foo - "the control type"
> Bar - "the control public interface"
> FooBean - "the control bean"
> BarBean - not interesting
> BarImpl.jcs - the control implementation
>
> When discussing Bar:
> Foo - not interesting
> Bar - "the control type" _and_ "the control public interface"
> FooBean - not interesting
> BarBean - "the control bean"
> BarImpl.jcs - the control implementation
>
> I'm open to replacing "control type" with "control interface" or
> "control interface type". I think "control interface" is somewhat
> confusing when paired with the above usage of "control public
> interface", but perhaps "control type" is just a little too odd?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
