Eclipse Community Forums: EMF » Generated factory class

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » EMF » Generated factory class

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

Generated factory class [message #427071]

Fri, 30 January 2009 21:02

Dave Ruest

Messages: 4
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

Playing with generation options, I'd set "suppress interfaces" to true,
and my interface and metadata package suffixes to different values. With
these values, the generated factory create() methods generate and return
anonymous inner classes (correct term?) as below:

public A createA() {
A a = new A() {};
return a;
}

If I set the interface and metadata packages suffixes to the same value,
I get the simple constructor call I expected"

public A createA() {
A a = new A();
return a;
}

I tracked this down to the snippet below, in FactoryClass.javajet:

<%if (genModel.isSuppressInterfaces() &&
!genPackage.getReflectionPackageName().equals(genPackage.get InterfacePackageName()))
{%>{}<%}%>

Finally, my question: is it safe to modify the template and remove the
anonymous inner classes?

D.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Generated factory class [message #427074 is a reply to message #427071]

Fri, 30 January 2009 23:44

Ed Merks

Messages: 33142
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Dave,

The constructor is protected so if it's in a different package from the
factory the pattern we have is needed...

Dave Ruest wrote:
> Playing with generation options, I'd set "suppress interfaces" to
> true, and my interface and metadata package suffixes to different
> values. With these values, the generated factory create() methods
> generate and return
> anonymous inner classes (correct term?) as below:
>
> public A createA() {
> A a = new A() {};
> return a;
> }
>
> If I set the interface and metadata packages suffixes to the same value,
> I get the simple constructor call I expected"
>
> public A createA() {
> A a = new A();
> return a;
> }
>
> I tracked this down to the snippet below, in FactoryClass.javajet:
>
> <%if (genModel.isSuppressInterfaces() &&
> !genPackage.getReflectionPackageName().equals(genPackage.get InterfacePackageName()))
> {%>{}<%}%>
>
> Finally, my question: is it safe to modify the template and remove the
> anonymous inner classes?
>
> D.

Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/

Report message to a moderator

Re: Generated factory class [message #427077 is a reply to message #427074]

Sat, 31 January 2009 01:26

Dave Ruest

Messages: 4
Registered: July 2009

Junior Member

Aha, right you are! So I should at least use the "public constructors"
flag. And if I change the template I should include a check for the
flag in case I change my mind about the location of the factory.

Thanks!
D.

Ed Merks wrote:
> Dave,
>
> The constructor is protected so if it's in a different package from the
> factory the pattern we have is needed...
>
>
> Dave Ruest wrote:
>> Playing with generation options, I'd set "suppress interfaces" to
>> true, and my interface and metadata package suffixes to different
>> values. With these values, the generated factory create() methods
>> generate and return
>> anonymous inner classes (correct term?) as below:
>>
>> public A createA() {
>> A a = new A() {};
>> return a;
>> }
>>
>> If I set the interface and metadata packages suffixes to the same value,
>> I get the simple constructor call I expected"
>>
>> public A createA() {
>> A a = new A();
>> return a;
>> }
>>
>> I tracked this down to the snippet below, in FactoryClass.javajet:
>>
>> <%if (genModel.isSuppressInterfaces() &&
>> !genPackage.getReflectionPackageName().equals(genPackage.get InterfacePackageName()))
>> {%>{}<%}%>
>>
>> Finally, my question: is it safe to modify the template and remove the
>> anonymous inner classes?
>>
>> D.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Generated factory class [message #427084 is a reply to message #427077]

Sat, 31 January 2009 12:57

Ed Merks

Messages: 33142
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

Dave,

Probably our generator should be smarter to take that public
constructors flag into account. Please open a bugzilla enhancement
request and we'll add that additional guard to the base template.

Dave Ruest wrote:
> Aha, right you are! So I should at least use the "public
> constructors" flag. And if I change the template I should include a
> check for the flag in case I change my mind about the location of the
> factory.
>
> Thanks!
> D.
>
> Ed Merks wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> The constructor is protected so if it's in a different package from
>> the factory the pattern we have is needed...
>>
>>
>> Dave Ruest wrote:
>>> Playing with generation options, I'd set "suppress interfaces" to
>>> true, and my interface and metadata package suffixes to different
>>> values. With these values, the generated factory create() methods
>>> generate and return
>>> anonymous inner classes (correct term?) as below:
>>>
>>> public A createA() {
>>> A a = new A() {};
>>> return a;
>>> }
>>>
>>> If I set the interface and metadata packages suffixes to the same
>>> value,
>>> I get the simple constructor call I expected"
>>>
>>> public A createA() {
>>> A a = new A();
>>> return a;
>>> }
>>>
>>> I tracked this down to the snippet below, in FactoryClass.javajet:
>>>
>>> <%if (genModel.isSuppressInterfaces() &&
>>> !genPackage.getReflectionPackageName().equals(genPackage.get InterfacePackageName()))
>>> {%>{}<%}%>
>>>
>>> Finally, my question: is it safe to modify the template and remove
>>> the anonymous inner classes?
>>>
>>> D.

Ed Merks
Professional Support: https://www.macromodeling.com/

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Creating in-memory EMF resource
Next Topic:	Working with XML files with EMF?

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

]

Current Time: Fri Apr 26 18:17:14 GMT 2024

.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Breadcrumbs

Sign up to our Newsletter