-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 811
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
WW-5381 Introduce extension point for MethodAccessor #825
Conversation
@@ -87,12 +92,6 @@ protected void setContainer(Container container) throws ClassNotFoundException { | |||
OgnlRuntime.setPropertyAccessor(cls, container.getInstance(PropertyAccessor.class, name)); | |||
} | |||
|
|||
names = container.getInstanceNames(MethodAccessor.class); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Now there is one drawback here - applications lose the ability to specify custom method accessors for different types. They will now instead need to use the extension point and do the delegation within this "global" method accessor. I'm not sure there's a way to retain this capability and make it compatible with the current extension point system.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm... so maybe just mark this functionality as @deprecated
or remove - once someone starts complain we can re-think how to put back such functionality.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm actually just had another think and we should be able to retain backwards compatibility, the code will be a little ugly though - let me give it a shot
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we are good now :) Hopefully the code makes sense, added some JavaDoc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me, thanks!
588d6fc
to
c322aba
Compare
(SonarCloud report is comparing against wrong base branch) |
7de06b1
to
573dbbc
Compare
4ae768e
to
f3c160d
Compare
Quality Gate failedFailed conditions 10 Security Hotspots See analysis details on SonarCloud Catch issues before they fail your Quality Gate with our IDE extension SonarLint |
WW-5381
Fairly straight forward again but see my comment below