Victor, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Victor Volle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: [clazz] Some general thoughts on the design
> Dmitri, > > your design reflects a decision I am currently having > to make. So I would like to discuss the > two possibilities and think about the possible > suitability to [clazz]. > > We have some interfaces but no (abstract) default > implementation. That means: for each > ClazzLoader XXX we have to provide our own > implementation of XXXClazz, XXXClazzProperty etc. > Even if only the "building", "filling" of the > Clazz is different. All XXXClazz implementations > will probably have a list of (declared) Operations, a List > of (declared) Fields, some methods to find all fields > (as opposed to the declared ones). > So I am thinking that we could factor out > a common default implementation for Clazz, ClazzProperty. > And let the ClazzLoaders do the work. > When you look at your implementation of ReflectedProperty, > there is nearly nothing reflection specific. > > I fear that I might be missing something. > What do you think? I agree 100%. It's just I wanted to have at least two implementations of these interfaces before we decide what belongs in those common support classes. > Associated with this line of thought is the handling > of "Attributes" (MetaData). MetaData could be > factored out into some abstract super class > MetaModelElement. Absolutely. > > Victor Thank you, - Dmitri -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
