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 21:39:35 GMT
Not sure if that would work but ya, kind of like that. DI could get you
there without having to rip apart the core of flex.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Roland Zwaga <roland@stackandheap.com>wrote:

> Or even better, don't need StyleManager? Throw it out completely and save a
> buttload of memory :)
>
> On 4 January 2012 22:31, Jonathan Campos <jonbcampos@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 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