polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kent Sølvsten (JIRA) <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ZEST-129) Review the different activation/initialization/lifecycle methods
Date Sat, 14 Nov 2015 00:34:11 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEST-129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15004966#comment-15004966
] 

Kent Sølvsten commented on ZEST-129:
------------------------------------

Maybe even the Lifecycle interface for entities should be a candidate for replacement with
@PostConstruct and @PreDestroy

> Review the different activation/initialization/lifecycle methods
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ZEST-129
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEST-129
>             Project: Zest
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Niclas Hedhman
>
> Kent wrote on mailing list;
> {quote}
> I agree that the mix and match between composites and mixin declarations of the same
@Activators concept might lead to confusion - not a good idea.
> But a whole new thought .... aren't we reinventing the wheel here.
> We have Initializable interface - declaring a method (on the mixin) invoked after construction.
We have ServiceActivation - with 2 initialize/destroy methods implemented by a mixin - and
sort of referenced from the declarations on the composites.
> We have @Activators -- that may be declared on the composite - with wide flexibility
implementation-wise.
> But .... the JDK already has @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy annotations. These were originally
JEE stuff, but have been in the JDK for several years. And it is the same thing! Keeping a
special Initializable interface is, frankly, a quite dated way of doing stuff.
> I would say we should add support for declaring @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy on Mixins
- and support for @PostConstruct on plain objects (instantiated by ObjectFactory). And simply
remove (or just deprecate) Initializable and ServiceActivation alltogether.
> I am more uncertain whether the @Activators should be kept or not. On one hand I cannot
find a single usage in the whole codebase using beforeActivation and afterPassivation - so
not sure anyone would miss those features.
> On the other hand it might be handy to be able to reuse the same activation logic across
several composites - And there could be some potential of reusing the Activator as a listener
for UnitOfWork activation/passivation instead of module activation/passivation. The afterPassivation
could have some usages in that context.
> So I think we should keep that concept for now.
> {quote}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message