-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14
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
Feature/neba 16 #27
Feature/neba 16 #27
Conversation
- Renamed service interface to better reflect the fact that the mapping must be annotation-based.
- Added checkstyle rules and resolved checkstyle conformity issues
* collection type, e.g. {@link java.util.List} or {@link java.util.Set}. Otherwise, an exception will arise. | ||
* </p> | ||
* | ||
* <p> |
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.
Good point...
-Corrected synchronization and applied the same pattern to the model registry for consistency -Improved naming
* @return the path of a field, as determined by the field name or {@link io.neba.api.annotations.Path path annotation}. Placeholders | ||
* in the path are resolved at this point. Never <code>null</code>. | ||
*/ | ||
String getFieldPath(); |
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.
Maybe getRepositoryPath() was better, I was thinking of a Java Field.
-Improved javadoc -Added the generic type parameter to the interface -improved method naming
In my project, we previously had two PostProcessors:
With this NEBA improvement I refactored the processors into field mappers:
So the functionality is basically the same, but the implementation is much easier now and less error-prone. LoC decreased by over 50%. Even though this complicates things in NEBA, I think it will be a great feature :) |
Allright! Wile this does increase complexity, I agree it could be an asset for complex projects and the architecture of the implementation is quite acceptable, as is the test coverage. |
This is the initial implementation of custom field mapper support in NEBA. Please review with a focus on the impact on architectural risk, performance and simplicity