I agree, that a string for the path would be nicer for getCollection, however in that case we can't make it a simple service anymore as getCollection() would need to get the resource resolver from somewhere.
Carsten 2013/5/6 Amit.. Gupta. <[email protected]> > Yeah, good suggestion that will also make it consistent with regards to > use of resource resolver. Also, I was thinking that getCollection should > take String path, instead of resource. > > Resource seems confusing, though I changed it to make it consistent with > other methods in the interface. > > WDYT? > > -Amit > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 06 May 2013 18:01 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [COLLECTION] ResoucreCollectionManager > > Btw, the current implementation is sometimes using the resource resolver > from the passed resource and sometimes the one used when the manager was > created. This should be avoided. > > > 2013/5/6 Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> > > > Hi, > > > > I looked at the recent version of the ResourceCollectionManager. I'm > > fine with the API, but why not make this a simple service which one > > can lookup from the service registry? > > > > With the new API there is no need to hold a resource resolver within > > the manager, as always at least a resource is passed into a method. So > > we can make this a real service, remove the getResourceResolver() > > method and leave the adapter factory as a convenience way. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Carsten > > > > -- > > Carsten Ziegeler > > [email protected] > > > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [email protected] > -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
