Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Gang (read Rickard), > > there are big visibility problems, that we need to address asap. > > There are several places where we have methods that returns the > Composite meta data, whether that be getCompositeBindings() or > lookupServices(), where it is very unclear who is responsible for > providing the visibility rules. IMHO, we should have a separation of > calls to the various ModuleXyz classes between "give me what you have" > and "give me what you can see". For instance; > > ModuleBinding.getCompositeBindings() --> Returns the composite > bindings held by the module. > > ModuleBinding.findCompositeBindings() --> Return all composites that > the Module can see. > > And do this for ModuleBinding, ModuleContext and ModuleInstance, and > possibly other places. > > > Right now, there is a mish-mash of code everywhere handling the > visibility rules, and even clients will at the moment need to code > around this as well.
I agree that this is a complete mess, and needs to be fixed up. I agree that the names suggested is a good way to do it (get vs find), and maybe we should extend this so that the current ServiceLocator is renamed to ServiceFinder and then have findService/findServices rather than lookupService/lookupServices. And *then* rename EntityFinder.find to findEntities and add findEntity (single), and it should be reasonably symmetric and semantically well-defined. Makes sense? /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
