On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 20:05 -0500, Leonardo Uribe wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:33 AM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > <stuff about template vs subclass modes removed> > > > > By the way, what does the JSFComponent.parent attribute do? > > > In conclusion, "superClass" and "parent" are different concepts. > > "parent" is a component defined on the model, so the component defined > > by @JSFComponent annotation inherits properties. "superClass" is used > > in the template. > > If I understand this right, there are now two quite different concepts > of inheritance: > > (a) inheriting logical sets of jsf properties > (b) normal java inheritance (inheriting type and methods) > > If this is the case, then I think it is the wrong way to go. > > We need this plugin to be *simple* and *understandable*, both for people > who use it and people who maintain it. Otherwise the code will bitrot > and die, just like all the previous attempts at code generation. No-one > maintained the original myfaces generator, and it is now dead. *You* > have a good understanding of the trinidad-faces-plugin, but just about > no-one else does. And MyFaces shouldn't be in a place where it depends > entirely on you for its continued existence. > > That's why using *normal* java inheritance to drive the meta-data makes > sense. It's something that every Java programmer understands. > > This templating stuff is unfortunately necessary, due to the TCK rules. > But I think it would be best to still emphasise the other ways of using > the builder *first*, then make this templating stuff an "extra". Unlike > the way it currently is, where templating is effectively the default and > you have to explicitly set superClass in order to use the more easily > understandable subclass-generation approach. >
Aaahhhh, in that case use template=true have more sense. This implies some changes about what we are doing right now, but now this is fully defined, so I'm not have problem implementing this. > > And setting up a completely separate concept of inheritance in order to > group JSFProperty definitions seems a really bad idea. It seems that > this was introduced only to solve problems in Tomahawk. So maybe that > means that some Tomahawk class hierarchies are actually wrong. If we > need to introduce a couple of new interfaces that existing classes > implement, or insert some new abstract base classes into existing > components to fix what are currently broken hierarchies, then let's do > that rather than hacking up the builder plugin to use some concept of > inheritance that is NOT normal java inheritance. > Ok, no prob. I'll detect the problems on the hierarchy and solve it. Thanks for your accurate suggestions ;) regards Leonardo Uribe > > Regards, > Simon > > > >
