Nice to see there's going to be an official release this month. I understand they are not more often, if you were doing a lot of improvements due to the Statio project development.
By now we will continue to prioritize to implement on Apache Isis a BC of our current solution in order to test it with our Domain, but those contributions are "annotated" :-) El 12/05/2013, a las 16:01, Dan Haywood <[email protected]> escribió: > On Friday, 10 May 2013, GESCONSULTOR - Óscar Bou wrote: > >> >> Hi to all. >> >> First of all, it's recommended to evaluate Apache Isis over the current >> snapshot's "quickstart_wicket_restful_jdo-archetype" or using the current >> released version? It's quite stable for evaluation purposes? I can >> understand the opposite, as all bugs I can found are well known. But if >> there has been enough improvements to easier the evaluation, I would change. >> > > For casual evaluation, the archetype is fine, but as you point out, there > are a bunch of new changes and some bug fixes in trunk that need to be > released. > > As I mentioned in my reply to your other email, I intend to push out an > updated release later this month. > > > >> >> >> A suggestion that can help debugger's life. >> >> While debugging using the Junit viewer, an exception is raised for a >> mandatory field (I assumed) that has not been entered. As all fields that >> have no annotation are by default mandatory (@Optional must be written >> explicitely), any non-Apache Isis migrated project will have plenty of >> them. > > > I know that in Naked Objects for .NET, there is a flag to allow the > interpretation of unannotated fields to be either as optional or as > mandatory. I believe this was done to conform with Microsoft's Entity > Framework (their ORM). > > I mention this only to say that it can be done, not necessarily to say that > we should do it. But we can start a separate thread about this and see > what the community wants, if you wish. > > > > >> Also, if a programmer's forget to annotate a field, it will be a commonly >> found exception. Same will happen for non-mandatory parameters on actions >> placed on Entities or Services. >> >> A more clear message could be something similar to this: >> >> "A Mandatory field (%s) has not been entered for an instance of Class: %s." >> >> > What can I say?... it's open source; contributions welcome :-) > > > > > >> Also, in my case I finally noticed that it was an Action parameter what >> was required, as Apache Isis also will assume that all parameters not >> annotated with "@Optional" are also mandatory. >> >> In such a case, a message like this one would be expected: >> >> "A mandatory parameter (%s) has not been entered while executing action >> '%s' on an instance of Class '%s'" >> >> I think all previous information is available on the Object Specification >> and Listerners, so it could be possible to include it relatively "easily". >> > > Again, contributions welcome ... > > > > >> The following exception was raised instead: >> >> org.apache.isis.progmodel.wrapper.applib.InvalidException: Mandatory >> at >> org.apache.isis.progmodel.wrapper.metamodel.internal.DomainObjectInvocationHandler.toException(DomainObjectInvocationHandler.java:561) >> at >> org.apache.isis.progmodel.wrapper.metamodel.internal.DomainObjectInvocationHandler.notifyListenersAndVetoIfRequired(DomainObjectInvocationHandler.java:533) >> at >> org.apache.isis.progmodel.wrapper.metamodel.internal.DomainObjectInvocationHandler.handleActionMethod(DomainObjectInvocationHandler.java:483) >> at >> org.apache.isis.progmodel.wrapper.metamodel.internal.DomainObjectInvocationHandler.invoke(DomainObjectInvocationHandler.java:225) >> at >> org.apache.isis.progmodel.wrapper.metamodel.internal.InvocationHandlerMethodInterceptor.intercept(InvocationHandlerMethodInterceptor.java:37) >> at >> com.xms.framework.architecture.domain.model.technology.NodeFactory$$EnhancerByCGLIB$$17e4a172.createNode(<generated>) >> at >> com.xms.framework.architecture.domain.model.technology.NodeTest.testCreateCommunicationPathAssociatedWithNode(NodeTest.java:78) >> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) >> at >> sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39) >> at >> sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) >> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597) >> at org.junit.internal.runners.TestMethod.invoke(TestMethod.java:68) >> at >> org.apache.isis.viewer.junit.IsisTestRunner$1.invoke(IsisTestRunner.java:160) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.MethodRoadie.runTestMethod(MethodRoadie.java:107) >> at org.junit.internal.runners.MethodRoadie$2.run(MethodRoadie.java:88) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.MethodRoadie.runBeforesThenTestThenAfters(MethodRoadie.java:96) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.MethodRoadie.runTest(MethodRoadie.java:86) >> at org.junit.internal.runners.MethodRoadie.run(MethodRoadie.java:49) >> at >> org.apache.isis.viewer.junit.IsisTestRunner.invokeTestMethod(IsisTestRunner.java:124) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit4ClassRunner.runMethods(JUnit4ClassRunner.java:61) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit4ClassRunner$1.run(JUnit4ClassRunner.java:54) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.ClassRoadie.runUnprotected(ClassRoadie.java:33) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.ClassRoadie.runProtected(ClassRoadie.java:45) >> at >> org.junit.internal.runners.JUnit4ClassRunner.run(JUnit4ClassRunner.java:52) >> at >> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit4.runner.JUnit4TestReference.run(JUnit4TestReference.java:50) >> at >> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38) >> at >> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:467) >> at >> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:683) >> at >> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:390) >> at >> org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:197) >> >> >> >>
