2 Feb
2010
2 Feb
'10
9:30 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 08:41, Marius Dumitru Florea
<mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hi Norbert,
Indeed, annotations should be harmless. We can start with option (1)
having xwiki-component-api as a provided dependency until I find a way
to register the component roles at runtime.
You can find in many unit tests how to do it, actually even the init
components are registered at runtime. See
ComponenetManager#registerComponenent.
Annotations and component manager are two different things: at startup
XWiki components are loaded and given to ComponenetManager with a
plain ComponentDescriptor generated from the annotations.
But you still need to list them somewhere since you cant search for
all classes implementing some interface in the classpath. (which is
why we have component.txt files)
Thanks,
Marius
Norbert Sándor wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
I don't know anything about the "xwiki
component" infrastructure, but as
an external user I would prefer (2).
Anyway, here are some thoughts if you choose (1):
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Keep the annotations and thus the dependency.
If they are really only annotations then theoretically they would not
cause problems.
When something is marked with an annotation which is unknown at runtime,
the JRE should ignore the unknown annotation.
(There were some related bugs in the early JRE5 versions but I think
they are all fixed now - eg.
http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6322301 .)
If I'm right then the GWT compiler handles this as well, so unknown
annotations are simply ignored during compilation.
(A related - already fixed - issue is
http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=1830 but I
think there were many in the early GWT-1.5 days :).
So the "xwiki component annotations" can be declared as a "provided"
dependency, and a project can decide to include or not to include them
as real compile/runtime dependency.
(The m2eclipse plugin may have problems with this approach because it
adds "provided" dependencies to the build path as well. But I think this
would not affect end-users, only the developers of rta-editor. I will
explain it further if you need.)
Regards:
Norbi
2010.01.31. 20:31 keltezéssel, Marius Dumitru Florea írta:
Hi devs,
I'd like to split the wysiwyg module in two:
xwiki-gwt-editor : All the client side except the editor initialization
code. This module should depend only on xwiki-gwt-dom and
xwiki-gwt-user. As a consequence, anyone should be able to inherit this
module and reuse the editor outside XWiki. All the editor plugins are
included but we don't enforce their use. This means that external
parties can assemble whichever plugins they want and only those plugins
will be compiled into JavaScript. Some plugins use services. External
parties have to implement this services if they want to use the plugin.
xwiki-gwt-editor-xwiki : XWiki-specific client initialization code plus
all the server side (i.e. the XWiki implementation of plugin services).
This module will depend on xwiki-gwt-editor and XWiki platform.
All this is quite easy to do, except one thing. Plugin services are
treated as components by XWiki which means service interfaces have to be
annotated as component roles. This adds a dependency on
xwiki-component-api to xwiki-gwt-editor. I see two options:
(1) Keep the annotations and thus the dependency. This requires no
effort but will make the editor less reusable for those who want to
implement the services in a different way, using a different component
manager for instance.
(2) Remove the component role annotations and add some code to
xwiki-gwt-editor-xwiki that dynamically registers as component roles at
XWiki startup all the interfaces extending RemoteService (all GWT
services must extend this interface). I'm not sure this is possible
because components defined in components.txt are looked up earlier.
Vincent, WDYT?
We can improve later the organization and maybe split xwiki-gwt-editor
in multiple modules, but for now this is the quickest way to make the
editor reusable. I'm ready to do the split as soon as we agree on the
details. WDYT?
Thanks,
Marius
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2659 - Release Date: 01/31/10 07:39:00
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs