-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/#review139735
-----------------------------------------------------------




lens-api/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/api/ToXMLString.java (line 61)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/#comment205075>

    If `tClass` is changed from `Class<T>` to just `Class`, then the caller has 
no idea what to pass there. We can't expect the callers to pass the correct 
`ObjectFactory` class. Can we revert this and incorporate the logic of 
picking/not picking object factory or package name here?



lens-server/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/server/scheduler/SchedulerDAO.java 
(line 430)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/#comment205076>

    use the function `org.apache.lens.api.scheduler.ObjectFactory#createJob`.


- Rajat Khandelwal


On June 27, 2016, 11:27 p.m., Lavkesh Lahngir wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 27, 2016, 11:27 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for lens.
> 
> 
> Bugs: LENS-1205
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LENS-1205
> 
> 
> Repository: lens
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Classes generated from xsd do not contain the @XMLRootElement. We need to 
> Pass a JAXBElement object while calling marshal() method. Also at the time 
> unmarshal(), it returns the JAXBElement.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   lens-api/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/api/ToXMLString.java fca56a8 
>   
> lens-api/src/test/resources/toString/org.apache.lens.api.query.SchedulerJobHandle.xml
>  ef7d0c7 
>   
> lens-api/src/test/resources/toString/org.apache.lens.api.query.SchedulerJobHandle.yaml
>  567d8cf 
>   
> lens-server/src/main/java/org/apache/lens/server/scheduler/SchedulerDAO.java 
> e866eb3 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49275/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Lavkesh Lahngir
> 
>

Reply via email to