[jira] [Commented] (TAP5-1611) out-of-the-box way in Tapestry for replacing components

[Lance (JIRA)]

    [ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1611?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14032257#comment-14032257
 ] 

Lance commented on TAP5-1611:
-----------------------------

Thanks v. much for the impl but I have a couple of issues.

1. I think ComponentReplacer should be called ComponentOverride to be 
consistend with 
[ServiceOverride|http://tapestry.apache.org/5.3/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/ioc/services/ServiceOverride.html]

2. Tapestry has complex classloading for component classes and I don't feel 
that `java.lang.Class` instances for components are valud in an AppModule. I 
feel that it should be strings instead.

eg
{code}
    public static void 
contributeComponentClassResolver(Configuration<LibraryMapping> config, Logger 
log) {
        config.add(new LibraryMapping("lib1", "foo.bar.lib1"));
        config.add(new LibraryMapping("lib2", "foo.bar.lib2"));
    }

    public static void 
ContributeComponentOverride(MappedConfiguration<String,String> config) {
        config.add("lib1.someComponent", "lib2.someComponentOverride");
    }
{code}

> 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
>             Fix For: 5.4
>
>
> 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)