It seems to me that DispatchContext plays a similar role as
ExecutionContext - as far as being a container of artifacts used by
services. I'm thinking DispatchContext could decorate an
ExecutionContext instance, and then the service engine wouldn't need to
have another object to pass around.
-Adrian
Adrian Crum wrote:
I'm bumping this because I might have some time this weekend to help.
David - I would like to work on converting some of the frequently used
lower-level concrete classes to interfaces. You didn't reply when I suggested
it before. Do you have any objections?
Also, if that conversion is done, it could be done in the trunk - negating the
need for a branch. In other words, once the higher level code is using
interfaces, you can muck around with the implementations all you want.
-Adrian
--- On Fri, 7/17/09, Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Adrian Crum <adrian.c...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r795024 [1/6] - in
/ofbiz/branches/executioncontext20090716: ./
applications/content/src/org/ofbiz/content/content/
applications/order/src/org/ofbiz/order/order/
applications/party/src/org/ofbiz/party/party/
applications/product/src/org/ofb...
To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org
Date: Friday, July 17, 2009, 5:07 PM
--- On Fri, 7/17/09, David E Jones <d...@me.com>
wrote:
There is a basic reason for this, and it's because I'm
lazy
and also not sure how many of these "lower level"
objects we
even want interfaces for.
My preference would be to change all of it to interfaces.
Higher level code should interact with interfaces - not
concrete classes (dependency inversion).
Keep in mind you're not alone in this effort - I'm
available to help.
-Adrian
