Hi Raymond,
I had similar requirements before and we came up with the following
solution:
- I did not care about the XML stuff at all as I think offering
MetatypeProvider service is a much better approach than generating XML
- my classes that implement ObjectClassDefinition and AttributeDefinition,
implement other interface(s) as well that contains more information in a
typesafe way
By doing this, the one who processes Metatype can decide with a simple
*instanceof* if the extra information can be used. E.g.:
ObjectClassDefinition od = metatypeProvider.getObjectClassDefinition(...);
if (od instanceof MyExtraInfo) {
...
}
My implementation class for my Component Model technology is at
https://github.com/everit-org/ecm-component/blob/master/core/src/main/java/org/everit/osgi/ecm/component/ri/internal/metatype/AttributeDefinitionImpl.java
As you can see, the class also implements AttributeMetadataHolder
interface. That can contain a
- StringAttributeMetadata that has properties like *multiline*
- ReferenceAttributeMetadata that has information to be able to show a
popup selector window for service references on our
webconsole-configuration plugin
With this technique Metatype spec. does not have to be extended at all.
Everything is typesafe. There is no difference between knowing a hint (that
is a String) or an extra interface (that can have typesafe information)
when we write plugins to tools the programmer creating configuration.
Regards,
*Balázs **Zsoldos*
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Raymond Auge <raymond.a...@liferay.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Jan Willem Janssen <
> janwillem.jans...@luminis.eu> wrote:
>
> > Hi Raymond,
> >
> > > On 03 Mar 2015, at 16:24, Raymond Auge <raymond.a...@liferay.com>
> wrote:
> > > […]
> > > However, a metatype implementation change would be required but ONLY
> for
> > > access to said new "hints" information. This would require:
> > >
> > > 1) reading the extra schema info while parsing the metatype xml
> > > 2) providing API access to the information
> > >
> > > Implementing
> > > 1) is simple, just need to enhance the parser with the fields we decide
> > > 2) I was thinking of something like the following:
> > > […]
> >
> > IIRC, the MetaType spec already allows for optional attributes to be
> > defined
> > on ADs, Attributes, OCDs and Objects. I believe that this would already
> > cover
> > most of these requirements, not?
> >
>
> Sure! However, the need to read the metatype again is painful when metatype
> is already reading it. Furthermore, this doesn't work for
> MetatypeProviders.
>
> - Ray
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Met vriendelijke groeten | Kind regards
> >
> > Jan Willem Janssen | Software Architect
> > +31 631 765 814
> >
> > My world is revolving around INAETICS and Amdatu
> >
> > Luminis Technologies B.V.
> > Churchillplein 1
> > 7314 BZ Apeldoorn
> > +31 88 586 46 00
> >
> > http://www.luminis-technologies.com
> > http://www.luminis.eu
> >
> > KvK (CoC) 09 16 28 93
> > BTW (VAT) NL8169.78.566.B.01
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> *Raymond Augé* <http://www.liferay.com/web/raymond.auge/profile>
> (@rotty3000)
> Senior Software Architect *Liferay, Inc.* <http://www.liferay.com>
> (@Liferay)
> Board Member & EEG Co-Chair, OSGi Alliance <http://osgi.org>
> (@OSGiAlliance)
>
