On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 7:51 AM Chris Poulsen <mailingl...@nesluop.dk> wrote:
> Hi > Hello! > The "fix" for GenericsUtils is attached. > I don't think the attachment worked. Could you please post it inline? Or, better yet, to a Jira issue? Thanks in advance. :) > I think that Guava is not the proper general solution as it is a rather > huge beast to bring in, just to get access to its TypeToken. Personally I > would prefer a lighter solution. > > We have been running this code in production since medio '16 without > requiring any more fixes. I can see from my commit comment back then, that > I initially attempted to fix GenericsUtils itself, then attempted to use > the commons-lang3 (reflect stuff) and finally gave up plugging in Guava as > it was already a dependency of our application. If the reflect stuff from > commons-lang3 could be made to work, that would not require any additional > dependencies being added and be a good solution IMO. > > I'm not sure I did create a ticket for the GenericsUtils issue, I may just > have asked on the list to see if anyone else was had experienced something > similar. > > Revisiting our override code I also see that we have a custom > PropertyAccessImpl in place, that one fixes some cases where the Java > Introspector fails to locate some setters, but I see that the Tapestry > class has received some changes after our version was created, so I > probably need to check whether that one is still necessary. > > -- > Chris > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 1:05 AM Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo < > thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM Chris Poulsen <mailingl...@nesluop.dk> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi >> > >> > Hello! >> >> >> > We are using some pretty complex data models with deep interface >> > hierarchies and generics, and I ended up replacing the internals of >> > GenericsUtils with calls to com.google.common.reflect.TypeToken (Guava) >> to >> > get correct behavior >> >> >> Would it be possible to share your GenericUtils implementation using Guava >> with the Tapestry project? Also, what's the ticket you posted before? We >> definitely want to fix it for the 5.5.0 release. I already got another >> report of a similar problem from another person and it would be nice to >> reuse your solution if possible. >> >> >> > (often tapestry would complain that some "setter" was >> > not found or similar because it resolved the type to something higher in >> > the interface/object hierarchy and missed the correct method override >> due >> > to typing or something else. (I spent some time on attempting to fix the >> > tapestry implementation, but ended up thinking it was a waste of time >> > trying to replicate functionality that was already coded (more >> correctly) >> > by other people, and picked guava as that was already present in our >> > dependencies). >> > >> > Perhaps it is possible to find a lightweight,/focused library with a >> > compatible license today, that tapestry could rely on, instead of >> > attempting to implement this on its own. >> > >> > This is obviously not a widespread problem, but it is one of correctness >> > and it tickles my OCD ;) >> > >> > -- >> > Chris >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 1:23 PM Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo < >> > thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:41 AM Rafael Bugajewski < >> > > raf...@juicycocktail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Congratulations! Thanks to the core team for your continuous work >> and >> > the >> > > > effort you put into maintaining Tapestry. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > >> > > >> > > > I think the whole industry goes the way of trying to simplify things >> > > (just >> > > > take a look at the most recent programming languages & frameworks). >> If >> > > > we’re talking about modernizing and competing with other >> frameworks, I >> > > > would like to see Tapestry reducing the complexity that is currently >> > > > required to grasp the framework and its various concepts (which are >> > > > technically great, but sometimes hard to understand if you just >> start >> > > > working with Tapestry). I think this will only work by providing >> old & >> > > new >> > > > APIs at the same time and by making the upgrade path and >> improvements >> > > very >> > > > clear in the documentation. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Well, some stuff is indeed not simple, and I'd say the form support is >> > the >> > > part which could use some new components to make at least the simpler >> > > scenarios simpler to implement (for example, when there are no loops). >> > > Which other areas do you think could or should be simplified? >> > > >> > > >> > > > Personally I’m also getting into the vibe of smaller services that >> > > > communicate with each other, instead of this one monolithic giant >> that >> > > > tries to be everything, but is nothing in the end. We use >> > > bootique-tapestry >> > > > (and also other Bootique-compatible integrations). I would like to >> see >> > > > Tapestry to also go in this direction and improve integration on >> > similar >> > > > deployment environments. >> > > > >> > > >> > > We could definitely have some ideas to make microservices easier to >> build >> > > on the top of Tapestry-IoC. >> > > >> > > >> > > > On the other side, I’m currently pretty happy with the state of >> > Tapestry >> > > > and with the framework keeping up with modern Java versions. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Thiago >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Thiago >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org -- Thiago
