Material Control Classifications

Coordinator
Jun 20, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Adam, I am not sure how to best deal with the material control classifications that are part of the IOperation and IProduct interfaces.

Some configurations don't have material control, but in order for them to use pom they have to include them in their TDF.

Perhaps we should remove them and allow the users to add them to their project specific classes?

Coordinator
Jun 22, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Edited Jun 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Committed some code (d28b7fd2b678) that will assign a default value to properties if pom does not find the associated TDF field name or classification. So I think this makes the user experience a lot nicer, however they need to be aware that default values are being used (which shouldn't really be a problem since they will probably never use those property values in their solution.)

Coordinator
Jun 22, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Commit aa561fee28b2 will also deal with Interfaces that do not have an associated format defined in the TDF.

Coordinator
Jun 22, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Adam, as per our conversation the Product base type will not get registered automatically. It will be up to the user to register the Product class, and assign the name of the Product format to it. (i.e. pom.Register<IProduct, Product>("Products");)

Commit aa561fee28b2 includes all this. Thanks for your time this afternoon, I think pom should be very straight forward to use now. Will add more documentation about what we discussed over the next few days.

Developer
Jun 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Hi Ben,

No problem... I think we've made some fairly sensible descisions in these early days.  I'm sure these things will evolve over time.  I'll be catching up over the next couple of weeks, keen to get hold of what we have currently and see if there is any room for the relect emit stuff I was looking at a while ago.

I hope you got on your train OK.

Adam.

Coordinator
Jun 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Hi Adam,

Just missed the train by 2 seconds.. gave me time to work on POM while waiting for the next one though.

I will be looking at the Preactor tracking functionality to see if we can leverage that as well in some situations.

Cheers,

 

Ben