polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kent Sølvsten <kent.soelvs...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Removing cruft
Date Fri, 26 May 2017 11:18:35 GMT
ok.

I was thinking that with thinking of the items as services, then @Service
injection would possibly be more suitable than @Structure - so that could
be another reason to not rush stuff.

I have no access to a dev env right now - what is the valuetypefactory used
for  before activation?

On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:

> I was doing a spike on this;
>
> * The ValueTypeFactory is different than the others, in that it is used
> prior to model activation and can not really be a service straight up as it
> is now.
>
> * The Activation semantics are getting in the way of the refactoring. In
> fact that warrants its own post-3.0 refactoring and "deep thought".
>
> So, let's not worry about this right now.
>
> Niclas
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Kent,
> > yeah, you have a point.
> >
> > I was thinking more; I can have this done today, and avoid another
> > breaking change later.
> >
> > The @Deprecated approach could of course also be taken. But I think
> either
> > needs to be done.
> >
> > Niclas
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Kent Sølvsten <kent.soelvsten@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I think you are right, but not sure the timing is right (3.0 should get
> >> out of the door - i hope to become more active after that is done).
> >>
> >> But maybe we should deprecate all of those methods - i guess most/all of
> >> them can already be obtained by @Structure injections ...
> >> Spend some later 3.x releases refactoring internally (introduce them as
> >> services, accessed by the module implementation), and then remove the
> >> methods altogether in 4.0.
> >>
> >> ?
> >>
> >> /Kent
> >>
> >> Den 25-05-2017 kl. 08:17 skrev Niclas Hedhman:
> >> > Gang,
> >> >
> >> > since the UnitOfWork system is now Composites, shouldn't that mean
> that
> >> we
> >> > can clean up a lot of "special features" in there, and replace with
> >> > standard ways, such as Services instead of explicitly know SPIs
> >> reachable
> >> > from Module.
> >> >
> >> > In fact, all I am talking about is present in a single interface
> >> >
> >> > public interface ModuleSpi extends Module
> >> > {
> >> >     EntityStore entityStore();
> >> >
> >> >     IdentityGenerator identityGenerator();
> >> >
> >> >     Serialization serialization();
> >> >
> >> >     MetricsProvider metricsProvider();
> >> >
> >> >     ValueTypeFactory valueTypeFactory();
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And isn't that the same "should be provided by default" that we
> >> discussed
> >> > earlier?
> >> >
> >> > I think this shows that there is a fundamental issue, and we should
> >> simply
> >> > replace all of the above with services insread.
> >> >
> >> > WDYT?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Cheers
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
>

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