Style question...
why have the param Object planFile, rather than overload with real types?
On Sep 26, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Sep 26, 2004, at 3:55 AM, David Jencks wrote:
This might be moving in a good direction overall, but one aspect totally sucks, namely that in the ModuleBuilder interface in the
Module createModule(String name, Object planFile, JarFile moduleFile, URL specDDUrl, String targetPath) throws DeploymentException;
method the planFile can be either a File or an XmlObject from an embedded plan.
Personally I think at this point passing XmlObjects around rather than file-like objects is a better idea.
The planFile parameter can either be a File, XmlBean Object or null. I thought about parsing the file directly in the EarConfigBuilder, but that would require the builder to know about all the XmlBeans schemas used in module deployers (or XmlBeans parses it into a typeless thing that looks like a DOM). I prefer to simply pass the location through to the module builder so it can handle it like it does for a standalone module with an external plan (6 one way, half a dozen the other)....
-dain
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
