On 6/17/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> The component name may be nothing like the implementation name How does that fit with the spec saying - ""A component type file has the same name as the implementation file but has the extension ".componentType"" ? I'm looking for a way to make the default case easy, it doesn't have to deal with every edge case. The componentType file is really to be thought of as an extension of the
implementation for those (hopefully few) cases where introspection of the implementation cannot provide the required information.
Maybe "implementationType" would have been be a better name :-) My suggestion is that the SPI should put the burden on the
implementation module - for example a special method on the xxxImplementation class with a name like "locateComponentTypeFile". Actual loading of the componenttype file can be generic, but finding the file is definitely a job for the implementation-handling code.
The problem with this is some don't want the simple xxxImplementation class to even be implementing any interface so ideally as much generic function would be built in the runtime, and thats what I'm trying to find a way of doing. I was wondering if the contribution service could help here. It could discover all the .componentType files in a contribution making their names available, the values of all the attributes of the xxxImplementation class are also known so it could compare all the attribute values against all the found .componentType file names ignoring the file extension and when there's a match thats the .componentType for the implementation. How does that sound? ...ant
