[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1611?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14032073#comment-14032073
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on TAP5-1611:
-------------------------------------------------------
Commit e6a83e031ad65eac99614f108392d06a8ff6c8f9 in tapestry-5's branch
refs/heads/master from [~thiagohp]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=tapestry-5.git;h=e6a83e0 ]
TAP5-1611 : out-of-the-box way in Tapestry for replacing components
> out-of-the-box way in Tapestry for replacing components
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TAP5-1611
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1611
> Project: Tapestry 5
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: tapestry-core
> Affects Versions: 5.3
> Reporter: Jens Breitenstein
> Assignee: Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: component, month-of-tapestry
>
> It would be nice to allow global component replacement by a different
> component class (or derived version from the original) compared to the field
> type provided. So @InjectComponent would behave more or less like @Inject for
> services without the need of Interfaces.
> NOTE:
> current workaround is decorating ComponentInstantiatorSource
> As Thiago outlines my workaround is sub-optimal as it bases on internal
> classes which might subject to change without notice. He suggests to have an
> Service we can contribute our "overrides" to. Replaceing components would
> introduce a new level of flexibility to change implementations without
> touching tml's at all. Naturally ServiceBinder was not my suggested place for
> this new kind of "binding", seems to be a misunderstanding. From a functional
> point of view I was just thinking about something like...
> public static void bind(final ComponentBinder binder)
> {
> binder.bind(ComponentA,class, ComponentBderivedFromA.class);
> }
> ...this, as an example.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
