Well, after some more investigation, I realized that Implementation interface extends ComponentType interface, so the change I proposed wouldn't solve the issue.
I'm modifying the componentTypeModelResolver to support resolving componentType side files following the java import/export as discussed in [1]. Should all these extension implementation artifacts be using the componentTypeModelResolver instead of the ExtensibleModelResolver ? [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg28021.html On Feb 15, 2008 6:39 PM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have multiple tuscany extensions (implementation types) that has > it's Implementation implemented by extending componentType in order to > re-use some common code. During resolve phase, we have code in > ExtensibleModelResolver to find the proper resolver based on the > interfaces of the implementation we find ComponentType as one of the > interfaces and try to use the componentType model resolver, failing in > some cases where information such as URI is not available. > > Should we refactor part of these common code to a base class, and have > the extensions and componentTypeImpl extend from that ? This would > properly map these extensions to use the default model resolver, as it > would not find other unrelated interfaces anymore. > > Thoughts ? > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany Committer > http://people.apache.org/~lresende > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
