Thanks Sebastien. Will go ahead and check in the changes now.
- Venkat
On 7/31/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jean-Sebastien Delfino wrote:
> > Venkata Krishnan wrote:
> >> Luciano, you are right... here is the code snippet that I have added
> >> to the CompositeProcessor.resolve()
> >>
> >> for (ComponentProperty componentProperty : component.getProperties()) {
> >> if ( componentProperty.getFile() != null &&
> >> componentProperty.getFile().length() > 0 ) {
> >> DeployedArtifact deployedArtifact =
> >> contributionFactory.createDeployedArtifact();
> >>
> >> deployedArtifact.setURI(componentProperty.getFile());
> >> deployedArtifact =
> >> resolver.resolveModel(DeployedArtifact.class, deployedArtifact);
> >> if ( deployedArtifact.getLocation() != null &&
> >> deployedArtifact.getLocation().length() > 0 ) {
> >>
> >> componentProperty.setFile(deployedArtifact.getLocation());
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> - Venkat
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > OK, I understand better now :) What you're proposing looks fine to me.
> > CompositeProcessor already depends on ArtifactProcessor, ModelResolver
> > etc. which are all from the contribution module. So passing a pointer
> > to ContributionFactory to it does not alter any layering.
> >
>
> One minor comment, I'd suggest to remove the:
> && componentProperty.getFile().length() > 0, as it'll mask a syntax
> error in the .composite file
> and
> && deployedArtifact.getLocation().length() > 0, as it'll mask a serious
> error in the contribution service
>
> --
> Jean-Sebastien
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
