On 7/3/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/3/07, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In writing the Topology mode I had to make a copy of the base artifact > processor as it only has package visibilityIt has lots of useful utilities > alongside the assembly specific bits. How about we separate the utilities > from the assemly specific bits and make the utilities more widely > available. > For example, we could separate the utilites for reading XML elements from > those that read specific assembly elements into a more fundamental base > class. I think this would be good (but its only fare to note that there's at least one who's away on holiday right now who may not be so keen). One of the issues is should the SPI be just interfaces or can it also have abstract or utility helper classes as well. Some of those type of classes could make using the existing SPI much easier IMHO and could make things like the extension helper redundant. ...ant
To date the SPI (as described in the 0.90 CHANGES document) has been fairly consistent in that it has concentrated on interfaces. It's always easy to find the exception that proves the rule as there are classes in there but generally it's interfaces. I think it would be useful to expose those utilities that we don't expect to change much and allow people access to them. I am completely happy to wait on this though. As I say I took a copy at the moment in order to avoid any untoward changes. Not ideal but there you go. This case is interesting though as the class I want to use is part of assembly.xml which we didn't declare as being part of the SPI currently. Simon. Simon
