polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niclas Hedhman (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ZEST-129) Review the different activation/initialization/lifecycle methods
Date Thu, 21 Apr 2016 01:28:25 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZEST-129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15251070#comment-15251070
] 

Niclas Hedhman commented on ZEST-129:
-------------------------------------

Spring documentation (at least in Spring 3.2) says the following little tidbit;

<quote>
Tip
The JSR-250 @PostConstruct and @PreDestroy annotations are generally considered best practice
for receiving lifecycle callbacks in a modern Spring application. Using these annotations
means that your beans are not coupled to Spring specific interfaces. For details see Section
5.9.6, “@PostConstruct and @PreDestroy”.

If you don't want to use the JSR-250 annotations but you are still looking to remove coupling
consider the use of init-method and destroy-method object definition metadata.
</quote>

It is interesting that it helps decouple from Spring (which is just as hard as decouple from
Zest) interfaces.

> 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