On 6/18/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
That could be quite a gamble in my opinion. There is a possibility that
some attribute value of an implementation type instance could end up
matching a componentType that corresponds to some other implementation.
Even if the specs changed to have an attribute called 'implArtifact' or
'implResource' so that you can pick up the implementation resource
information, it would still not help to deal generically if implementation
types have their own means of loading this and the associated componentType
info. And then what is implementation types decide to add their extensions
to a ComponentType. ?
...ant
- Venkat
