as with the activation context i think it would be very error prone (from my exprience). what if you really swap the parameter positions, consider more than two parameters. i think the chance to create bugs that cannot be detected by unit tests increases. except you have very good integration tests.
but... if we had additional positional annotations or an own marker annotation to distinguish them.... i think it would we a good idea as you could spare some indirections g, kris cordenier christophe <christophe.corden...@gmail.com> 04.02.2010 15:16 Bitte antworten an "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> An Tapestry users <users@tapestry.apache.org> Kopie Thema Re: Multiple configuration items per service 2010/2/4 Kristian Marinkovic <kristian.marinko...@porsche.co.at> > hi, > > i guess it is so because it is difficult to distinguish the > contributions if they are of the same type: > > Filter(Collection<String> whitelist, Collection<String> blacklist>) > > contribute(Configuration<String> blacklist, Configuration<String> > whitelist) > Also i think ordering should be sufficiant, this is what happen with activation context methods. Don't you think ? > > i solve these type of problems by creating two seperate services either > with an own interface (BlackListSource, WhiteListSource) or by binding the > same class with two different service identifiers... just another > indirection :) > > g, > kris > > > > > > cordenier christophe <christophe.corden...@gmail.com> > 04.02.2010 14:34 > Bitte antworten an > "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> > > > An > Tapestry users <users@tapestry.apache.org> > Kopie > > Thema > Multiple configuration items per service > > > > > > > Hi, > > I have a use case where i want to provide to my service a white list + a > black list of patterns.This list must be extensible by the service user > via > a contributeXxx method. > The DefaultModelDef does not allow this. > I guess this is a design choice, but is it reasonnable to say that the > contributeXxx should have as many configuration parameters as the service > constructor to accept the contribution method ? > > Regards, > Christophe > >
