Thanks Felix. I noticed the typo (ADAPTER_CLASSES). Indeed, @Property annotation taking Class object would be nicer.
I was using these as examples: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/sling/whiteboard/fmeschbe/adapterfactory/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/jcr/jackrabbit/adapterfactory/ <http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/sling/whiteboard/fmeschbe/adapterfactory/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/jcr/jackrabbit/adapterfactory/> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com>wrote: > Hi Sam, > > Am Donnerstag, den 10.02.2011, 20:03 +0000 schrieb sam lee: > > Hey, > > > > I am using Sling and Felix (Day CQ to be exact). > > > > I am trying to provide my own AdapterFactory so that I can do > > resource.adaptTo(Foo.class); > > > > This is what I have: > > > > @Component(name="...", metatype=false, immediate=true) > > @Service > > public class FooAdapterFactory implements AdapterFactory { > > ... > > @Property(value={Resource.class.getCanonicalName()}) > > private static final String ADAPTERS = > AdapterFactory.ADAPTER_CLASSES; > > } > > > > > > Obviously, this won't compile because Resource.class.getCanonicalName() > is > > not constant expression. > > > > > > Workaround would be using String literal: > > @Property(value={"org.apache.sling.api.resource.Resource"}) > > private static final String ADAPTERS = > AdapterFactory.ADAPTER_CLASSES; > > This is actually wrong because ADAPTER_CLASSES lists the target classes > to adapt the objects to. In addition, instead of introducing unneeded > additional constants, I declare such things on the class level such as: > > > > @Properties({ > > @Property(name = AdapterFactory.ADAPTABLE_CLASSES, value = { > > "org.apache.sling.api.resource.ResourceResolver", > > "org.apache.sling.api.resource.Resource" }), > > @Property(name = AdapterFactory.ADAPTER_CLASSES, value = { > > "javax.jcr.security.AccessControlManager", > > > "org.apache.jackrabbit.api.security.JackrabbitAccessControlManager" }) }) > > > > > > > > > Is there other way to register AdapterFactory to Felix? > > @Property annotation does not take Class .... > > > > And I don't want to use string literal. > > Currently there is no way to use something like xyz.class. But out of my > belly it sounds like a reasonable extension to support something like > > @Property(name = AdapterFactory.ADAPTABLE_CLASSES, > classValue = { > org.apache.sling.api.resource.ResourceResolver.class, > org.apache.sling.api.resource.Resource.class > }) > > where the class objects will then be converted to their fully qualified > names as is done for the @Service annotation. > > Regards > Felix > > > > Thanks. > > >
