Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4F3295BD.5080503@leichtgewicht.at>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:33:17 +0900
From: Martin Heidegger <mh@leichtgewicht.at>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] From Singletons to Unit-testable code
References: <CB57CA96.3BBA5%aharui@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB57CA96.3BBA5%aharui@adobe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 08/02/2012 23:45, Alex Harui wrote:
> My simple mind just can't understand why we need a sophisticated multi-step
> plan or full dependency injection.  Why can't a simpler substitution pattern
> do the job?

The complexity always comes with the detail. I assume one could 
summarize it with:

   Move the static constructs to a service locator to implement unit 
tests and replace it step by step to get a injectable source code.

I broke the refactoring up in many steps to illustrate that this way 
will be constantly tested from step 2.

Michaels approach as well as your approach will most likely be more 
complex in reality than summarized.
For example: Modifying the compiler, creating an AOP mechanism and then 
changing all code to follow that pattern is a huge project. where each 
part has to be tested.

I am curious about the "simpler substitution": How would you do that in 
detail?

yours
Martin.