cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylv...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Simplifying component handling
Date Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:35:25 GMT
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Aren't you tired of implementing a service/dispose combo for each of
> your components over and over again? Now, actually, I am. Big time.
>
> If you look at several of our components, they do something like this:
>
> class MyComponent implements SOMETHING, ThreadSafe, Disposable,
> Serviceable {
> protected ClassA compA;
> protected ClassB compB;
> protected ServiceManager m;
>
> public void service(ServiceManager m) {
>   this.m = m;
>   compA = (ClassA)m.lookup(ClassA.ROLE);
>   compB = (ClassB)m.lookup(ClassB.ROLE);
> }
> public void dispose() {
>   if ( m != null ) {
>     m.release(compA);
>     m.release(compB);
>   }
> }
>   

The test "m != null" is useless, as dispose should never be called 
twice. Removes 2 lines :-)

> Way too much code me thinks. So what about:
>
> class MyComponent implements SOMETHING, ThreadSafe {
>   protected final ClassA compA;
>   protected final ClassB compB;
>
>   public MyComponent(ClassA a, ClassB b) {
>     compA = a;
>     compB = b;
>   }
> }
>
> We could simply add constructor injection: if the implementation does
> not provide a default constructor, the available constructor is called
> using reflection and the components are injected on construction of the
> object - no need to configure something in any xml configuration file.
> Implementing this is easy - I did this already years ago for Fortress.
>
> But I think it can even get easier:
> 1. Let's just assume that every component is ThreadSafe - unless
> otherwise stated - no need to declare the interface anymore. I think
> apart from the interpreter most components are threadsafe or poolable
> anyway.
>   

This is a huge change compared to the current behaviour, where no 
interface means not threadsafe and not reusable. IMO, this change can 
only happen if we completely move away from Avalon.

> 2. Let's remove support for pooled components - yes, seriously. Fiddling
> with the pool sizes is really annoying. We have a working factory
> approach for sitemap components, so why not simply use it overall? And
> rewriting the remaining pooled components shouldn't be that hard. (I now
> that we are proxying pooled components to simplify the lookup, but you
> still have to configure pool sizes).
>   

+1 for generalizing the factory pattern. Cocoon spends way too much time 
in checking Avalon's lifecycle interfaces and parsing configuration objects.

> My final idea is to use even more magic (but it might be too much magic?):
>
> class MyComponent implements SOMETHING {
>   protected final ClassA component_A;
>   protected final ClassB component_B;
> }
> When the component is instantiated all instance variables prefixed with
> "component_" are setup using some injection mechanism - or perhaps using
> annotations?
>   

Hmm...
- how do you unit test Cocoon without the container? By subclassing to 
access the protected fields?
- we can't strongly enforce the contract of subclasses by making some 
fields private.
- the naming convention weakens the strong typing of Java. What if you 
write "conponent_A"? Chasing the NPE won't be easy...

> Now, in the end I really want to write less code :)
>   

Use Ruby :-P

Seriously, I agree that writing less code is good, but not at the price 
of too black magic implying weaker contracts.

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                        Anyware Technologies
http://bluxte.net                     http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member     Research & Technology Director


Mime
View raw message