So, if no one really objects I'll create a patch for this today.
2013/5/6 Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> > We should not forget that we're running in a service oriented framework. > So the number one citizen is a service. And the manager is in fact a > service. So why not leverage this and make it available as service? > People always complain that the adapter pattern is too confusing and you > never know what can be adopted to which and so on. So having a proper > service oriented way is imho a must. And in addition provide the adapter > factory to do the adaptions. > > Regards > Carsten > > > 2013/5/6 Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected]> > >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Alexander Klimetschek >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > ...This touches on the topic on how things like this on top of the >> resource API should work in general. AFAIK, this is a first here... >> ... >> > The ResourceCollectionManager is really only needed to create a new >> collection >> > (get and delete can be done via adaptTo and Resource directly)... >> >> I agree that this doesn't sound consistent with the Sling's way of >> doing things - you have to get a special service or utility if the >> Resource that you want to create is of a specific type (collection). >> >> Without checking if that's doable, I'd be less surprised with >> >> properties.put("sling:resourceType", ResourceCollection.RESOURCE_TYPE); >> final Resource r = resourceResolver.create(parent, name, properties); >> final ResourceCollection c = r.adaptTo(ResourceCollection.class); >> >> Or even c = (ResourceCollection)resourceResolver.create(parent, name, >> properties) but that might fail. >> >> -Bertrand >> > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [email protected] > -- Carsten Ziegeler [email protected]
