On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 15:51 -0500, Leonardo Uribe wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
> This templating stuff is unfortunately necessary, due to the > TCK rules. > But I think it would be best to still emphasise the other ways > of using > the builder *first*, then make this templating stuff an > "extra". Unlike > the way it currently is, where templating is effectively the > default and > you have to explicitly set superClass in order to use the more > easily > understandable subclass-generation approach. > > Aaahhhh, in that case use template=true have more sense. > This implies some changes about what we are doing right now, but now > this is > fully defined, so I'm not have problem implementing this. > > > And setting up a completely separate concept of inheritance in > order to > group JSFProperty definitions seems a really bad idea. It > seems that > this was introduced only to solve problems in Tomahawk. So > maybe that > means that some Tomahawk class hierarchies are actually wrong. > If we > need to introduce a couple of new interfaces that existing > classes > implement, or insert some new abstract base classes into > existing > components to fix what are currently broken hierarchies, then > let's do > that rather than hacking up the builder plugin to use some > concept of > inheritance that is NOT normal java inheritance. > > Ok, no prob. I'll detect the problems on the hierarchy and solve it. Thank you very much Leonardo. I saw your commits go past already. You are really fast! I've got some documentation almost ready to commit (for the site, and for JSFComponent/JSFProperty/JSFJspProperty annotation classes). But I'll be away for the weekend so won't be able to get it in before mid next week. Thanks for your explanations which helped a lot to get this written.. Regards, Simon >
