2 Replies Latest reply on Jan 25, 2014 5:06 PM by George Gastaldi

    Re: [forge-dev] Obtaining project name in persistence provider

    George Gastaldi Master

      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  https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

       

      _______________________________________________

      forge-dev mailing list

      forge-dev@lists.jboss.org

      https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

       

        • 1. Re: [forge-dev] Obtaining project name in persistence provider
          Ivan St. Ivanov Novice

          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

          forge-dev@lists.jboss.org

          https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

           

          >

          _______________________________________________

          forge-dev mailing list

          forge-dev@lists.jboss.org

          https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

           

           

          • 2. Re: [forge-dev] Obtaining project name in persistence provider
            George Gastaldi Master

            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

            forge-dev@lists.jboss.org

            https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev