Yes, thanks. I will do it.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Jörn Kottmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> yes that would work. Why don't we define the init method on the
> BaseToolFactory,
> then it could be called via theFactory.init?
>
> Jörn
>
>
> On 07/13/2012 03:04 PM, William Colen wrote:
>
>> Jörn,
>>
>> Would it work?
>>
>> public static BaseToolFactory create(String subclassName,
>> ArtifactProvider artifactProvider) throws InvalidFormatException {
>>
>> // load the ToolFactory using the default constructor
>> BaseToolFactory theFactory = ExtensionLoader.**instantiateExtension(
>> BaseToolFactory.class, subclassName);
>> if (theFactory != null) {
>> try {
>> // call the init method that takes a ArtifactProvider argument
>> Method init = theFactory.getClass().**getDeclaredMethod("init",
>> ArtifactProvider.class);
>> init.invoke(theFactory, artifactProvider);
>> } catch
>> .....
>> }
>> }
>> return theFactory;
>> }
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jörn Kottmann <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/13/2012 01:47 PM, William Colen wrote:
>>>
>>> I've been postponing working on the OSGi support for the
>>>> BaseToolFactory,
>>>> I
>>>> am sorry.
>>>> I managed to have some free time this week, so I can do it right now if
>>>> you
>>>> didn't start it already.
>>>>
>>>> Also, before releasing 1.5.3, I would like to have the factory mechanism
>>>> available in the Chunker. I will do it latter today.
>>>>
>>>> Well, no hurry, I just had a look at the open issues for 1.5.3 and
>>> stumbled
>>> over the OSGi support one.
>>>
>>> I did it for the name finder, and wanted to hear opinions about my
>>> proposed changed for the tool factory loading.
>>>
>>> Jörn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
