Re: [Figleaf-developer] Re: current state of Introspector

[Greg S. <ste...@on...>]

sam...@ma... wrote:
> I've refactored a few things - ObjectIntrospector has now become a
> ClassDescriptorFactory - its job is to:
> 
> 1. Locate ClassDescriptor implementations on the classpath (e.g.
> MyObjectClassDescriptor if MyObject passed in)
> 2. Create implementations for classes which do not have ClassDescriptor
> implementations
> 
> This is tested, references renamed, and is checked in. InformativeFactory now
> handles part of what we want - pass in an Informative object, and it gets
> returned. Pass in an ClassDescriptor and I create an Observable implementation
> and return a composite Informative object. Pass in a POJO and I try and locate
> ClassDescriptor and return that as part of a composite object.
> 
> Next up I have to:
> 
> 1. Look for an Informative implementation on the classpath
> 2. Handle users defining their own Observable implementations
> 
> We do start hitting some complex cases that need clarification. For example what
> if I'm passing in objects of ClassA in where:
> 
> * ClassA doesn't implement ClassDescriptor, Informative or Observable
> * ClassAClassDescriptor and ClassAInformative exist on the classpath?
> 
> I think order of precedence should go like this:
> 
> 1. If an object implements Informative, use that
> 2. If an Informative implementation exists on the classpath use that
> 3. If the object implements ClassDescriptor, use that and implement the rest
> 4. If the object has ClassDescriptor on the classpath, use that and implement
> the rest
> 
> Actually, I think we need to simplify things (I keep thinking of these things
> mid email!) - perhaps we should just support the following:
> 
> 1. If an object passed to the factory implements Informative, use that 
> 2. If an ibject passed to the factory has an Informative implementation on the
> classpath, us that
> 3. Otherwise create a implementation.
> 
> Lets not worry about the developer partially implementing Informative - I think
> that is getting overly complex!
> 
> sam
> 

Yes, this last thought is the same as the e-mail I just sent.

Greg