I've managed to solve the issue without affecting org.apache.tapestry5.ioc. services.PropertyAdapter.
So the introduced methods are: Type Binding.getBindingGenericType() Type PropertyConduit getPropertyGenericType() Type ComponentResources.getBoundGenericType(String parameterName) I don't think anyone will be implementing their own ComponentResources or PropertyConduit so I think those changes are fin. Ashas been mentioned, third parties (including myself) have implemented custom bindings. If it's any consolation, I've implemented AbstractBinding.getBindingGenericType() to simply return getBindingType(). The other solution I can see is to have Binding2 in a similar style to Asset2 etc. On 16 May 2014 00:48, Howard Lewis Ship <hls...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd need to know a bit more; this will tend to break 3rd party libraries > that compile against the old code, which is not so good. Possibly if the > new information could be added under an entirely new method of the existing > APIs that would be less of a problem. > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Lance Java <lance.j...@googlemail.com > >wrote: > > > I'm looking into TAP5-1213 to provide access to the bound property's > > generic type information (eg List<SomeBean>). Basically the generic type > > information needs to be passed from PropertyConduitSource to > > ComponentResources > > > > This change requires adding a generic type getter to a few public > > interfaces, namely: > > - org.apache.tapestry5.Binding > > - org.apache.tapestry5.ComponentResources > > - org.apache.tapestry5.PropertyConduit > > - org.apache.tapestry5.ioc.services.PropertyAdapter > > > > I realise that adding methods to public interfaces breaks backwards > > compatability. What's people's thoughts on this? > > > > > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > Creator of Apache Tapestry > > The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to > learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast! > > (971) 678-5210 > http://howardlewisship.com > @hlship >
