-
1. Re: [forge-dev] Obtaining project name in persistence provider
OK, but what does the JavaEEDefaultProvider::configure method do? It
produces the content of persistence.xml. Why would you need Project object
to pollute the interface if it's used in just one of the implementations?
And we can even do without it, as you noted.
When I asked this question in the first message of this thread, I was
thinking of somehow injecting the project, not changing the interface.
But if you say it's reasonable, I will do that, it's not a big deal.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:00 PM, George Gastaldi <ggastald@redhat.com>wrote:
However since we are on CR1, and other requirements may appear, perhaps
it's wise to change the interface definition now than later.
Em 25/01/2014, às 18:58, "Ivan St. Ivanov" <ivan.st.ivanov@gmail.com>
escreveu:
Thanks, George!
As I am not really keen to change the interface definition, I would do it
as you proposed: without the project name.
Cheers,
Ivan
>
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:52 PM, George Gastaldi <ggastald@redhat.com>wrote:
>> Hey Ivan,
>> You could change the configure method signature to pass the project as a
>> parameter, but remember that it may be null.
>>
>> However, I think it would be better to not add the projectName to the DDL
>> file in order to keep it simple and easier to find.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> George Gastaldi
>>
>> Em 25/01/2014, às 18:42, "Ivan St. Ivanov"
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
-
2. Re: [forge-dev] Obtaining project name in persistence provider
I'd rather pass as a param than injecting tbh. This allows the object to be reused as a singleton without aby thread issues.
Btw Project is not yet available for injection. Should we create a JIRA for it?
Em 25/01/2014, às 20:02, "Ivan St. Ivanov" <ivan.st.ivanov@gmail.com> escreveu:
OK, but what does the JavaEEDefaultProvider::configure method do? It produces the content of persistence.xml. Why would you need Project object to pollute the interface if it's used in just one of the implementations? And we can even do without it, as you noted.
When I asked this question in the first message of this thread, I was thinking of somehow injecting the project, not changing the interface.
But if you say it's reasonable, I will do that, it's not a big deal.
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:00 PM, George Gastaldi <ggastald@redhat.com> wrote:
>> However since we are on CR1, and other requirements may appear, perhaps it's wise to change the interface definition now than later.
>>
>>> Em 25/01/2014, às 18:58, "Ivan St. Ivanov" https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list