I thought that when you said "in a non hackish and flexible fashion" it will for delegating the save-to-xml feature to an helper class and that I can contribute to this task.
Maybe I have misunderstand your sentence and I apologize. So I will let my patched class as I have no other choice.
Regards,
Florent
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Florent BENOIT wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote: Hello,
As I had already said in a previous mail, I'm interesting in the customisation of the save-to-XML feature. If it can be more flexible in order to specify our own save instead of supplying a patched StandardServer class (We can not extend extended the class as it's a final class. And I understand that it's can be a final class)
So, maybe I can contribute on a helper class, but I have some questions.
The helper class will be for the method storeConfig() or for storeServer() ? Because the name of the config file will remain the same name in the same place.
But it's true that the helper class must allow the best flexibility so maybe it would be for storeConfig.
So, the Helper class can be on the form StoreConfigHelper with a constructor which take a Server Object.
The storeConfig() method of StandardServer will call : storeConfigHelper.store(server)
All the stuff concerning exceptions, persistables, skippables could be in this helper class. Or it can be arguments for the constructor of the helper class.
StandardServer will also have a method for setting the helper class.
So there is a need of an interface. My next question is : Can we authorize the default StoreConfigHelper class to be extended and by allowing the fact that storeListener, storeContext, etc will be protected and not private.
Or if we have only choice by implementing a class of the StoreConfigHelper interface.
My last question is about the name and the package of these classes.
The helper class must go on the util package or stay in the core package.
The interface must go on root package where there are a lot of interfaces ?
Do you have advice for the name of these classes or architecture for this helper class.
I'm very interesting by having an helper class for customize the save-to-xml without having to patch StandardServer class
Regards,
To which I replied that I'm against hacking any more on the shaky code we have, which is *bad*.
I didn't change my mind, and I didn't forget about your previous posts wither. No need to post again verbatim, IMO.
Remy
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
