+1
I'm fine with this changes. I'm only wondering what is the intention for
"lookupByNameAndType"? Throwing an exception if the type is different? Or
returning null? Or ...?
Best,
Christian
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Łukasz Dywicki <l...@code-house.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
> During my work on camel-cdi component and cdi itself I realized that beans
> don't have to be named. They have qualifiers, which are more generic
> approach. To put some name on bean user must use @Named qualifier.
>
> This model doesn't fit very well to current camel registry SPI. For
> example if component developer is interested in returning all instances of
> given type he must name them. Next thing is Injector stuff, which allows
> usage of type to create instance. It's overlaps in some places same logic
> as most popular integration we have (Spring) uses ApplicationContext in
> both.
> I know that logically Registry and Injector are different ideas, however
> in 99.9% people use same Registry and Injector provider. Why we support
> that then?
>
> The proposal I bring here is following:
> interface Registry {
> // named lookups
> lookupByName(String name) : Object
> lookupByNameAndType(String name, Class<T> type) : T
>
> // typed lookups
> lookupByType(Class<T> type) : T
> lookupByType(Class<T> type, boolean createIfNotFound) : T
>
> // find calls
> findByTypeWithName(Class<T> type) : Map<String, T>
> findByType(Class<T> type) : Set<T>
> }
>
> I reviewed usage of current lookupByType which returns map and in most
> places key from returned map is not used at all.
> WDYT?
> --
> Łukasz Dywicki
> l...@code-house.org
> Twitter: ldywicki
> Blog: http://dywicki.pl
> Code-House - http://code-house.org
--
