hivemind-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Achim Hügen <>
Subject Re: comments / questions on hivemind 2.0 branch
Date Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:37:16 GMT
Knut Wannheden schrieb:
> Achim,
>> to be represented by a xml specific implementation of
>> ConfigurationPointDefinition
>> which is not available in the framework when they get constructed.
>> Natures (or better decorators) solve this problem.
> Maybe we could also drop the support for contributing to these
> configurations using XML. OK, I know this contradicts what I wrote
> about backwards compatibility in the other thread, but maybe that
> would be OK. I'd like to point out that Howard changed how the eager
> loading works in Tapestry 5 IOC. The ServicePointDef simply has a
> boolean getEagerLoad() method. How about that?
I think I've found a better solution (borrowed from
I will introduce a generic parser interface which is defined in the 
already and which is not xml specific. A configuration can have multiple 
registered parsers.
A parser is responsible for the contribution of data to a configuration
which is defined in a textual format (especially file based data).
The SchemaProcessor then is one special parser which can process
inline data from a hivemodule.xml.

The idea is that the creator of a configuration point says 'ok, here is 
a parser
which can read contributions from files' and the provider of a contribution
just says 'ok, then parse that file please'.

+ It solves our 'interface or no interface' dilemma. Since the parser 
  is available in the framework the hivemodule parser can be easily
  attached by the xml module afterwards.
+ Configuration data can be defined in external files (xml, properties etc.)
Either the hivemind parsing is extended so that xml files can be parsed
that adhere to a hivemind schema or alternative parsers (e.g. Digester) 
are used.
+ Better integration of legacy data files
+ Annotated modules can provide parsers easily (see annocon examples).

What do you think?


View raw message