Felix Meschberger wrote:
>
> Not sure whether I understand you correctly. Thing is that the adaptTo
> method just returns an object of the requested class (or null if not
> possible). It is by no means required, that the adaptTo method returns
> this cast to the correct type. So, the implementation may possible by:
>
> public <T> T adaptTo(Class<T> type) {
> if (type == Session.class) {
> return (T) getSession();
> } else if (type == ObjectMapper.class) {
> return (T) getObjectMapper();
> }
> return null;
> }
>
> private ObjectMapper getObjectMapper() {
> if (objectMapper == null) {
> objectMapper = new ObjectMapper(getSession());
> }
> return objectMapper;
> }
>
> I do not think, that we run into any extension problems using this
> approach because the ObjectMapper and the ResourceResolver are not
> necessairily the same.
>
Ok, these might not be the same classes, but the service used as the
resource resolver needs to "know" all possibilities for "adaptTo" and
needs to do the correct stuff.
So, if we have two possibilities for adaptTo, you can think of four
possible implementations - one not supporting the extensions at all, one
support both and two each supporting just one extension.
I'm not sure if this is just a theoretical problem, but it seems to me
that this might cause trouble over time.
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
