ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <cmanola...@yahoo.com>
Subject RE: antlib
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:48:10 GMT
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:

> This is exactly the point, we should try to type things. Roles

Why ? We have components that can be used in any role. Metadata can 
be extracted and used in a variety of ways - descriptors, interfaces,
runtime calls ( like in the 3 kinds of mbeans ). But in the end the user
of a component decides in what roles he wants to use it and how.


> are this typed interfaces expected by the set/add method. The component
> being declared of a particular role, may or may not implement the
> interface. If it does cool; if not an adaptor will be used to bridge the
> gap. It is upto the adaptor to decide if the bean is compatible or not.

+1 on this part


> The guy writing the container (the thing with the set/add methods) does
> not have to deal with introspection or anything of that. As s/he
> shouldn't. But by allowing adaptors someone can take some cool object and
> bridge it.

I think the "container" is ant. Not sure who should write the adapters - 
IMO ant can support this automatically ( by introspection since we can't use
1.3 features).


> So, since now this objects come from somewhere else, if it is not typed
> somehow, any object expecting an instance of the role need to do
> introspection by hand. Not good.

No. It is easy to provide this service in ant - just like it is done in
JMX. Code using JMX never does introspection - just calls the "invoke"
method. If JDK1.3 is used, he can get a proxy that implements the desired
interface. ( I think it can be done for JDK1.2 as well, but a bit harder ).


Costin






Mime
View raw message