avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: [repository] news - update - etc.
Date Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:09:32 GMT
On Sunday 30 November 2003 17:45, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Both Builder and Factory are completely type neutral.  

I disagree. It can't make coffee cups, motorbikes or potato chips.

> This is
> specifically to allow the management of factories by a bootstrapping
> system that does not know about a specific application. More
> importantly, the generic builder does not have application specific
> classes in its classpath.

So is it ApplicationBuilder? ObjectBuilder? ArtifactBuilder? BootstrapBuilder? 
ImplementationFactory?

(Sorry for not looking into the details yet. Just dislike too generic names, 
as Factory, Builder, Entity, which all exist in all frameworks, which makes 
stuff harder to read.)

<snip content="explaination" />
> How does that sound?

"Type" is irrelevant to this.
No matter what, the Builder/Factory has some form of context/scope to which it 
belongs, and I am seeking to minimize the number of standard names, which 
just makes it so harder to understand, especially if they overlap with other 
frameworks.
The fact that I can't derive the scope/context is IMHO already a weakness.

Q: Is it used to instantiate Avalon components?
Q: Is it used to instantiate non-Avalon components?
Q: Is it used to instantiate all implementations that has a declared 
interface?
Q: Is it used to instantiate all objects?
Q: Does it replace keyword "new"?


Maybe you think this is trivial matters, but it is about improving readability 
and ease of understanding.


Niclas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org


Mime
View raw message