river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher Dolan" <christopher.do...@avid.com>
Subject RE: converting RegistrarImpl to public class
Date Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:27:36 GMT
I would strongly support a change to 'public' with a 'protected'
constructor.  Currently my RegistrarImpl subclass has to live in the
com.sun.jini.reggie package, which I find distasteful.  The primary
purpose of that subclass is to have a public constructor, so I would
also be happy if RegistrarImpl had a public constructor (or factory
method).

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Sim IJskes - QCG [mailto:sim@qcg.nl] 
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:31 AM
To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: converting RegistrarImpl to public class

On 09-01-11 12:29, Dan Creswell wrote:
> For a simple "make something local" exercise, slight tweaks to the
service
> impl like making it public are enough. For more in depth stuff, as
you're
> suggesting (and as done with Blitz's LocalSpace) there tends to be a
lot
> more wiring and infrastructure that doesn't necessarily fit well
inside of
> the core service impl.

I agree that the wiring does not necessary have to be in the
river-runtime.

> A factory makes it nice and easy to get what one is after whilst
providing a
> layer of separation that affords a lot of flex in building exactly
what's
> required.

Shall we go for a 'protected' for both registrar implementations then? 
Because if you want to work with the binary dist, and stay out of the 
package space for river, work without reflection, you need to have some 
access.

Gr. Sim

-- 
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397

Mime
View raw message