myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manfred Geiler" <manfred.gei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: warning - use of class.getName() in shared
Date Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:17:35 GMT
Mario,
As mentioned earlier, yes, there is some pain with the new shared
structure. But my feeling is that most of the pain is due to the fact
that we have to break with some (bad) habits.

Please think of the two libs shared_impl and shared_tomahawk as two
*different* things. This affects debugging as well. There is no such
thing as a breakpoint in shared. Because there is no such thing as a
shared lib from the view of impl or tomahawk. You must really discard
that kind of thinking from your brain. The shared module is a *tool*
to create the two different libraries shared_impl and shared_tomahawk.
Nothing more! There is no (and there must not be any) single
dependency on shared from core or tomahawk. So, from the perspective
of core and tomahawk there are the two jars shared_impl and
shared_tomahawk. They differ in nothing to other (third-party) libs
that core and tomahawk depend on. Even more, there exists a
*-source.jar for each of them that can be used for convenience in
IDEs. You can debug or set a breakpoint within commons-logging code,
can't you? So, I do not see any reason why one should not be able to
debug shared_impl or shared_tomahawk in any IDE.

The other issue is the class.getName() (or FQN-Strings) problem.
Yes, of course, this can be a problem now. I feared things like that
and I will try to help resolve those issues ASAP. Let's look at the
key of the problem here: Why is it an issue when shared_impl and
shared_tomahawk have different FQN-Strings during runtime? Actually
having a problem with that is a sign for having a *functional
dependency* between shared_impl and shared_tomahawk - which is a
no-no! We must get rid of any functional dependency between them
because otherwise
 * we still are away from beeing able to release core and tomahawk in
different release cycles, and
 * we have no guarantee that tomahawk is independent of myfaces core -
ie. that tomahawk is able to run on top of another JSF impl

Sorry, I do not see a practicable alternative to our current
architecture. But, of course, we can discuss everything, no question!
Please, tell me if, if there are still unclear issues.

Manfred




On 3/9/06, Mario Ivankovits <mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Its again me ... somewhat angry, so sorry *grrrr* I CANT SET A
> BREAKPOINT IN SHARED ANY MORE - or I have to do it twice in shared_impl
> and shared_tomahawk.
> Please lets discuss again why this refactoring is needed - PLEASE !!!
>
> > Now I propose to get rid of all those class.getName() (or
> > this.getClass().getName where required) and replace them by a string
> > literal (representing the FQN of the class without any refactoring)
> >
> We cant use the FQN as then the refactoring happen on this string
> literal anyway.
> So I change my proposal to use org.apache.myfaces.XXXXXX
>
> WDYT?
> Mario
>
>

Mime
View raw message