I am creating an adapter class that wraps an existing bolt and adds monitoring. In practice, most bolts would likely implement IRichBolt, but it would be nice to support both without having additional code. BasicBoltExecutor does in fact appear to be a useable workaround. Thanks!
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Grant Overby (groverby) <[email protected] > wrote: > BasicBoltExecutor _appears_ to be an adapter from IBasicBolt to > IRichBolt > > *Grant Overby* > Software Engineer > Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/> > [email protected] > Mobile: *865 724 4910 <865%20724%204910>* > > > > Think before you print. > > This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole > use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or > authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by > reply email and delete all copies of this message. > > Please click here > <http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html> for > Company Registration Information. > > > > > From: "Grant Overby (groverby)" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 4:38 PM > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Bolt Type Question > > May I ask what is requiring the use of BaseBasicBolt? > > *Grant Overby* > Software Engineer > Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/> > [email protected] > Mobile: *865 724 4910 <865%20724%204910>* > > > > Think before you print. > > This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole > use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure > by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or > authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by > reply email and delete all copies of this message. > > Please click here > <http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html> for > Company Registration Information. > > > > > From: Nathan Leung <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM > To: user <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Bolt Type Question > > Ah yes, you are correct. I thought that it was different from > IRichBolt, but I misread inheritance hierarchy when I was looking at the > code today. So this makes it even more of a potential problem as it > doesn't really have a clean solution. > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Grant Overby (groverby) < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> “Obviously any bolt must implement IBolt" >> >> BaseBasicBolt isn’t an IBolt. If possible, sticking to using the “Rich” >> components will solve these sorts of issues. >> >> *Grant Overby* >> Software Engineer >> Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com/> >> [email protected] >> Mobile: *865 724 4910 <865%20724%204910>* >> >> >> >> Think before you print. >> >> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole >> use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure >> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or >> authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by >> reply email and delete all copies of this message. >> >> Please click here >> <http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html> for >> Company Registration Information. >> >> >> >> >> From: Nathan Leung <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 2:13 PM >> To: user <[email protected]> >> Subject: Bolt Type Question >> >> In storm there are in general two types of bolts, BaseBasicBolt, and >> IRichBolt. Obviously any bolt must implement IBolt and IComponent, but I >> would like to create a variable that can contain an instance of either >> IRichBolt or BaseBasicBolt and have access to all of the methods in IBolt >> and IComponent. The only way I can think of to do this is to store the >> Bolt object in an IBolt variable and then case to IComponent as necessary. >> Is there a better way to do this? >> >> Thanks, >> Nathan >> > >
