Correct, the type binding can only be as strong as the object model itself
exposes. The xml framework should not be looking for more explicit type
bindings by default. That should not preclude an object factory from choosing
to expose type specific injection points, so say the xmbean factory wants to
maninpulate the JDBCPm and FilePm prior to establishing the relationship:
| public void addChild(XMBeanMetaData xmbean, JDBCPm pm,
| ContentNavigator navigator, String namespaceURI, String localName)
| {
| pm.x(...);
| xmbean.setPersistenceManager(pm);
| }
| public void addChild(XMBeanMetaData xmbean, FilePm pm,
| ContentNavigator navigator, String namespaceURI, String localName)
| {
| pm.y(...);
| xmbean.setPersistenceManager(pm);
| }
| public void addChild(XMBeanMetaData xmbean, Object pm,
| ContentNavigator navigator, String namespaceURI, String localName)
| {
| xmbean.setPersistenceManager(pm);
| }
|
Sure this is just a convience for doing type chekcs in the most generic
signature, but if its not a big deal to implement its cleaner.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3859160#3859160
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=3859160
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/
_______________________________________________
JBoss-Development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
