incubator-flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Campos <jonbcam...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Flex modularity through composition and interfaces
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:31:52 GMT
The problem gets a bit hairy on parts of the framework that aren't readily
accessible (managers/singletons). These would be the first target for DI,
allowing swappable components following good interfaces.

Don't like StyleManager? Have a lightweight focus manager specifically for
mobile? DI could help you switch these out without rewriting UIComponent.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com>wrote:

> I think everyone's pretty much on the same page as you Mike :)
> Describing component functionality using sane interfaces will *allow* DI
> much more easily. If some type of configuration for this can be supported
> by the SDK, that would be awesome because existing DI frameworks could hook
> into those so that way everyone can keep on using their favorite
> application framework.
>
> cheers,
>
> ROland
>
> On 4 January 2012 22:24, Michael Schmalle <mike@teotigraphix.com> wrote:
>
> > This is just a weird thought and I have no opinion on DI since it's like
> > religion to most.
> >
> > Isn't the idea of OOP polymorphism, and the way you create it is through
> > abstract interfaces? Correct me if I'm wrong here.
> >
> > Maybe I am from another planet but it seems to me, that the strength in
> > Apache is to allow a democratic approach to creating a protocol agreed to
> > by the majority of the community.
> >
> > What is the problem on agreeing on some interfaces that could be put in
> > the core, for other outside DI libraries to implement.
> >
> > In this way, you would have a standard but allow anybody to create there
> > own implementation. At the same time without having a concrete
> > implementation IN the SDK you could still use the interfaces that could
> > provide "sockets" for DI without the dependencies.
> >
> > Just a thought, this is the same thought I have about component design.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque <rogelio@rogeliocastillo.com>:
> >
> >  I agree on modularity, but I reckon dependency injection is a totally
> >> different thing which has lots of very good libs out there... not sure
> if
> >> that should be part of the SDK.
> >>
> >> I believe that the focus should be on splitting the SDK into several
> >> modules/libs, then think on interface design.
> >>
> >> R
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque
> >> rogelio@rogeliocastillo.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/01/2012, at 6:11 PM, João Saleiro wrote:
> >>
> >>  +1
> >>>
> >>> I agree with reducing strong-coupled dependencies as the first
> priority.
> >>>
> >>> I would also complement the use of interfaces with:
> >>>
> >>> - using dependency injection when possible
> >>> - splitting the SDK into several libraries
> >>> - support and advocate the use of Maven for managing dependencies (or
> >>> something similar)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> João Saleiro
> >>>
> >>> On 04-01-2012 21:03, Michael Schmalle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Continuing the thread from "Committer duties and information"
> >>>>
> >>>> about setting interface priority to #1 in the future development fo
> >>>> Flex.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> regards,
> Roland
>
> --
> Roland Zwaga
> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA
>
> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com |
> http://www.stackandheap.com
>



-- 
Jonathan Campos
Dallas Flex User Group Manager
http://www.d-flex.org/
blog: http://www.unitedmindset.com/jonbcampos
twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jonbcampos

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message