I've moved the implementation to trunk. I'm wondering if we still need the FeatureProvider? A Feature could be an OSGi service by itself.
Carsten 2013/12/31 Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> > I've updated the implementation as discussed, however I'm not that happy > with the new service interface names. I came up with ResourceHiding and > ResourceTypeMapper...I hope someone can come up with better names :) > > Carsten > > > 2013/12/31 Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> > >> Yes, sure - name and description are good >> >> Carsten >> >> >> 2013/12/31 Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> >> >>> Hi Carsten, >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cziege...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> > ...I thought about making this more generic and have an >>> > adaptTo method on the Feature class instead and each functionality >>> > (resource type mapping, hiding resources) gets an own interface and >>> either >>> > the feature can be adapted to this or now. So calling adaptTo would be >>> the >>> > equivalent of hasXXX or canXXX... >>> >>> Works for me, good idea! >>> >>> I'd still keep the getDescription() method on the Feature, I think >>> this it's useful even if we don't use it internally. >>> >>> -Bertrand >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carsten Ziegeler >> cziege...@apache.org >> > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > cziege...@apache.org > -- Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org
