|
|
|
| Re: Separating API from Implementation in Model [message #663578 is a reply to message #663432] |
Tue, 05 April 2011 12:44  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Alain,
It should generally be possible not to export any of the model Impl
classes; they're exported by default so that folks can extend a model's
implementation by default, but it's not necessary to allow that. It's a
little disturbing how often folks end up using implementation classes
for no apparent good reason, i.e., where only the methods on the
interfaces are needed ; no one has ever explained why they're doing
that, though I have a theory...
Alain Picard wrote:
> I agree with your general statement here. It's just that I'm seeing
> some cases where certain projects have dependencies on model classes
> more like from a POJO perspective and these dependencies are making
> the whole plugin management more complex than I wish.
>
> Alain
>
> On 4/4/2011 8:42 PM, Ed Merks wrote:
>> Alain,
>>
>> EMF has not been so much focused on the ability to provide different
>> implementations of the same model but rather of hiding the
>> implementation behind an API so that the implementation can be
>> arbitrarily changed. Things like XyzPackage.eINSTANCE require the
>> package instance to be available and I doubt many folks would want
>> different implementations of that. The XyzFactory.eINSTANCE is a similar
>> issue. There does exist the ability to specify an implementation of the
>> factory that overrides the default one, and of course that allows one to
>> provide different implementation classes for the rest of the API as
>> well. In any case, I wouldn't worry in general about conforming to
>> "rules" just for the sake of conforming to rules but rather I'd focus on
>> what problem needs to be solved and why. Factory overrides seem adequate
>> if not perfect for what's needed...
>>
>>
>> Alain Picard wrote:
>>> I'd like to get some feedback on some of the patterns discussed here:
>>> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/websphere/techjournal/1007 _charters/1007_charters.html#sec5
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and how we could achieve the proposed bundle separation in EMF and
>>> even add the service flavor part.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the insights,
>>>
>>> Alain
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04810 seconds
Home