Gang,
I have dug deep into the Qi4j Runtime to "fix" the withTypes() on
assembly declarations to work consistently with the compile time
types. The initial driver for making this work was that @Mixins
declarations on auto-added ValueComposite to values not declaring it
as a superclass are ignored, because the withTypes() are not treated
equal to the main type. The impact is massive, but I take out the
compositeType concept completely and run with a "Iterable<Class<?>>
types" (I should wrap that to CompositeType).
BUT doing this, something very profound emerges;
* What is the difference between the "MainType" and "OtherType"
module.values( MainType.class).withTypes( OtherType.class )
??
In the refactoring I am almost done with, the establishment of the
model is identical. HOWEVER, a lot of assumptions are made everywhere
that "MainType" is of some bigger significance than "OtherType",
especially when it comes to serialization of composites, both for
entity stores as well as indexing.
I think this is a massive realization that affects a lot, and the path
forward should be considered. Not only will the amount of API and
documentation changes be massive, but I think it tilts our whole
perception of composite oriented programming.
Feedback is greatly appreciated. Meanwhile, I will finish off the
hybrid model where the mainType still has special meaning.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/6a2pl4j
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
