|Re: [equinox-dev] Extension registry evolution|
Great to see typed objects moving into the extension registry!
I am not sure if I fully understand IRegistryObject, therefore the following might not apply: I would not like my classes having to implement this platform related interface. Better provide an (additional) reflection based approach here in order to be non-invasive (e.g. like Spring DI).
What I really would love to see is the extension registry being based on or supporting the OSGi programming model. It is hard to have two similar approaches around and having to know both. Why not let the extension registry be an OSGi service (de)populated by applying the extender pattern? Then listening to changes in the registry (e.g. some new menu items coming in with a new bundle) would be the same task like listening to any OSGi service changes.
Am 24.09.2008 um 21:19 schrieb Oleg Besedin: