[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1611?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14040235#comment-14040235
]
Lance edited comment on TAP5-1611 at 6/22/14 8:25 PM:
------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't really talking about the map inside ComponentOverrideImpl. I was
talking about the map inside the MappedConfiguration at the time when tapestry
is building the from multiple modules. I'm not 100% sure on how the class
reloading works and how classloaders are shared. Can modules be hot-reloaded
independently of one another?
Let's consider the following case:
1. Module A contributes class X to ComponentOverride -
MappedConfiguration.add(X.class, XOverride.class)
2. Module B overrides the contribution - MappedConfiguration.override(X.class,
XOverride2.class)
Now, lets consider the case where Module B is reloaded after component X has
also been reloaded. Will step 2 work? Or will override fail since the two
classes are not the same? I'm not sure myself, it hurts my brain a bit ;)
was (Author: uklance):
I wasn't really talking about the map inside ComponentOverrideImpl. I was
talking about the map inside the MappedConfiguration. I'm not 100% sure on how
the class reloading works and how classloaders are shared.
Let's consider the following case:
1. Module A contributes class X to ComponentOverride -
MappedConfiguration.add(X.class, XOverride.class)
2. Module B overrides the contribution - MappedConfiguration.override(X.class,
XOverride2.class)
Now, lets consider the case where Module B is reloaded after component X has
also been reloaded. Will step 2 work? Or will override fail since the two
classes are not the same? I'm not sure myself, it hurts my brain a bit ;)
> out-of-the-box way in Tapestry for replacing components
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAP5-1611
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1611
> Project: Tapestry 5
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.3
> Reporter: Jens Breitenstein
> Assignee: Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: component, month-of-tapestry
> Fix For: 5.4
>
>
> It would be nice to allow global component replacement by a different
> component class (or derived version from the original) compared to the field
> type provided. So @InjectComponent would behave more or less like @Inject for
> services without the need of Interfaces.
> NOTE:
> current workaround is decorating ComponentInstantiatorSource
> As Thiago outlines my workaround is sub-optimal as it bases on internal
> classes which might subject to change without notice. He suggests to have an
> Service we can contribute our "overrides" to. Replaceing components would
> introduce a new level of flexibility to change implementations without
> touching tml's at all. Naturally ServiceBinder was not my suggested place for
> this new kind of "binding", seems to be a misunderstanding. From a functional
> point of view I was just thinking about something like...
> public static void bind(final ComponentBinder binder)
> {
> binder.bind(ComponentA,class, ComponentBderivedFromA.class);
> }
> ...this, as an example.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
