James, Looks good to me. I guess it's now only really some documentation aspects ;-)
- The new framework and library classes and methods added don't have an "@since 1.1" Javadoc tag. - The changes to the <interceptor> element should be documented in descriptor.xml and services.xml. (At some point we should probably factor out a separate page documenting interceptors.) - A brief documentation page for the MethodInterceptorFactory would also be great. (To verify the documentation changes you should run the Ant "site" target once and for subsequent checks it should be enough to run the "fast-site" target. I think you will also have to install Forrest first.) --knut On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:48:02 -0500, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's the patch that implements HIVEMIND-96 and HIVEMIND-45. Let me know > what you guys think and I'll go ahead and commit them (separately with > appropriate comments of course). > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 11:04 AM > To: [email protected]; 'Knut Wannheden' > Subject: RE: AOPAlliance Service Interceptors... > > I went to the project level and did a Team -> Update. Then, I go to the > project level and I do a Team -> Create Patch, but it only recognizes my new > classes. This is getting on my nerves, because I have both of these issues > resolved with test cases and I would like to check it into the 1.1 codebase > for you folks to check out. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Knut Wannheden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 11:01 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: AOPAlliance Service Interceptors... > > Sounds strange... Only tips I have: > > - Try resynchronizing the entire project > - Create the patch on the Project level > > Sorry if this doesn't help, but I can't think of anything else... > > --knut > > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:47:11 -0500, James Carman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I've got it implemented with test cases, but I can't get Eclipse to > > generate a patch for me! It sees my new classes, but fails to include the > > changes I have made to existing classes/interfaces. HELP! > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 10:47 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: AOPAlliance Service Interceptors... > > > > This works for me. Having the name default to the service id is a > > perfectly fine idea. > > > > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:35:50 -0500, James Carman > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Has anyone else come up with a way to do this cleanly? I think one big > > step > > > in the right direction would be support for overriding the interceptor's > > > name, replacing the factory's id with something else. This way, we > could > > > define ONE service interceptor factory which inserts a MethodInterceptor > > > defined elsewhere in the registry (or inline maybe) and the interceptors > > > could still be ordered, since they could have unique names. We could > > leave > > > it backward compatible, of course, defaulting the interceptor name to > the > > > service id of the interceptor factory. > > > > > > > > > > > > <interceptor service-id="hivemind.lib.MethodInterceptorFactory" > > > name="security"> > > > > > > <impl object="service:mymodule.SecurityInterceptor"; /> > > > > > > </interceptor> > > > > > > > > > > > > <interceptor service-id="hivemind.lib.MethodInterceptorFactory" > > > name="logging" before="security"> > > > > > > <impl > > object="instance:com.myco.myproject.interceptor.LoggingInterceptor" > > > /> > > > > > > </interceptor> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here, we have defined a service interceptor using another service and > one > > > using just a plain ole object. What do you guys think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2005 7:35 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: AOPAlliance Service Interceptors... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > Hello, All. Since the AOPAlliance Service Interceptors support didn't > > make > > > it into 1.1, when can we expect that to become available? I would like > to > > > discuss service interceptors in my article, but there is NO WAY that I'm > > > going to try to explain how to do it using Javassist. I would like to > use > > > the AOPAlliance stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > James > > > > -- > > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant > > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry > > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind > > > > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support > > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
