Another thing:
If no scope (null) is supplied to the dependency visitor it will visit no
dependency at all. I thought null here as an
match always case (otherwise you would have asserted not null in the
constructor?).
if( scope != null && dependencyModel.matchesScope(scope))
{
visitDependency( dependencyModel );
}
So, perhaps an:
if( scope == null || dependencyModel.matchesScope(scope))
{
visitDependency( dependencyModel );
}
Would be more appropriate?
Regarding the filtering for scope, perhaps an Specification (Evans, Fowler ->
discussed on the ddd list) approach would
be even better to have model classes respond to queries for certain
information/filtering.
Michael, asking
Michael Hunger schrieb:
> Just had a look at the dependency visitor.
>
> Why do you have to models exposing their internals to the visitor, wouldn't
> it be better to get a
> Iterable<DependenycModel> dependenciesForScope(Class<? extends Annotation>
> scope) in the model classes. So the filtering
> could be internal and the usage would be much cleaner. As well as having the
> law of demeter and behaviour and attributes
> together.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> Michael
>
> Rickard Öberg schrieb:
>> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alright, the cleanup and shuffle-around is done now. The only remaining
>>>> part which does not compile currently is the RDF-output of the model.
>>> I probably had a hunch, and it was never fully complete.
>>>
>>> So, I can take charge of this and "start over" in a couple of days,
>> Don't worry, I'm rewriting it now using the new ModelVisitor. It's quite
>> pretty, and not that much work (just started though, so might get
>> screwed later). Also, I created a DependencyVisitor as a subclass of
>> ModelVisitor so you can now easily traverse only the dependencies by
>> using that, like so:
>> ApplicationModel applicationModel = ...;
>> applicationModel.visitModel(new DependencyVisitor(Service.class))
>> {
>> public void visitDependency(DependencyModel serviceDependency)
>> {
>> .. do something with the service dependency ..
>> }
>> });
>>
>> It seems like creating some specialized visitors can make it a whole lot
>> easier to work with the model, now that the traversing is in one place
>> only (the model itself).
>>
>> /Rickard
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> qi4j-dev mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> qi4j-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
--
Michael Hunger
Independent Consultant
Web: http://www.jexp.de
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Enthusiastic Evangelist for Better Software Development
Don't stop where you are: http://creating.passionate-developers.org
We support Software Engineering Radio (www.se-radio.net)
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
