[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1611?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14040225#comment-14040225
]
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo edited comment on TAP5-1611 at 6/22/14 8:29 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bq. Since the class is being used as the key in a Map (MappedConfiguration),
will there be any unusual behaviour after live component reloading? Will
Class.equals() return false when we expect true?
Internally, ComponentOverrideImpl keeps and uses a Map<String, Class> (fully
qualified class name to class instance), not a Map<Class, Class>, so that
shouldn't be a problem. It also keeps a Map<Class, Class>, but just for logging
and debugging purposes.
Thank you very much, Lance, for this very interesting discussion. And for
saving me from adding a badly-named service to Tapestry! :D
was (Author: thiagohp):
bq. Since the class is being used as the key in a Map (MappedConfiguration),
will there be any unusual behaviour after live component reloading? Will
Class.equals() return false when we expect true?
Internally, ComponentOverrideImpl keeps and uses a Map<String, Class> (fully
qualified class name to class inatance), not a Map<Class, Class>, so that
shouldn't be a problem. It also keeps a Map<Class, Class>, but just for logging
and debugging purposes.
Thank you very much, Lance, for this very interesting discussion. And for
saving me from adding a badly-named service to Tapestry! :D
> 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)
