polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: Initializable, Invariants in invaluable inspection
Date Mon, 25 Dec 2017 05:34:18 GMT
Further Info; At the moment, the Initializable is called both on
vbf.newValueBuilder() (and its variants) as well as vbf.newInstance(). This
is a result of that the Value prototype is constructed with Mixins, and
mixins are handled uniformly in this respect.

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:

> Merry Christmas everyone,
>
> Never mind the title, but there is a design flaw in the initializable
> system for values. I think it stems from the fact that it was initially not
> very well defined and has since changed from being a callback for the Mixin
> rather than the Composite.
>
> At the moment, for ValueComposites (I have not checked it to be the case
> for the others) the Initializable is called at vbf.newValueBuilder() after
> the injection phase. This is suitable for setting up things like
> creationTime and anything else that is not depending on what else is set
> from the builder.
>
> But, one can't use it to compute a property during initialization, and
> since properties are immutable in Value Composites, there is actually no
> way at the moment to do this other than in the code that instantiate the
> value.
>
> So, we put this (able to initialize properties during the newInstance()
> phase) aside as a "requirement", and let's look at a broader picture;
> Invariants.
>
>
> Long ago, we tried to solve the request that one could declare Invariant
> checks, especially for aggregated Entities. That effort never took root in
> Qi4j, and perhaps now is the time to look at the whole picture.
>
>
> Invariant checking is about ensuring that an Entity Aggregate is never
> accessible in a incoherent state. Transactions/UnitOfWork takes care of the
> atomicity, but there is no built-in mechanism to ensure that an invalid
> state has not occurred "naturally", say, the total allocated container CPU
> load isn't higher than the host's available CPU capacity. At the moment,
> such thing needs to be built in somewhere, and without front-facing
> services handling such entities, it is quite easy for developers to
> "forget" or "didn't know" such rules.
>
> The same checking mechanism should be generic enough to apply to all
> Composites, so let's assume that we solve this somehow.
>
> Now, such checking needs to happen in more than one place. On one hand,
> for entities, this needs to take place at uow.complete(), prior to
> committing it to persistent storage. For all composites it also needs to
> happen at builder.newInstance(). And for Transient Composites, it would
> also need to happen on every set() method.
>
> So these hook points are needed to support Invariant checks (mechanics not
> relevant right now), but could we make these hook points more generic, so
> that the initialization issue above could leverage the same underlying hook?
>
> If so, then I wonder if the majority of hooks that are in place, could be
> made equally generic, and therefor a big reduction in codebase handling all
> these hooks to be invoked. There are a great number that comes to my mind,
> beyond the two mentioned ones above;
>
> * Activation system
> * Lifecycle interface for entities
> * Field injection, Constructor injecton, Method injection
> * newValueBuilderWithState(), newValueBuilderWithPrototype(),...
> * newEntityBuilderWithState()
> * addUnitOfWorkCallback, removeUnitOfWorkCallback
> * StateChangeNotificationConcern
>
> And I am sure there are others.
>
> So, we could either organically add better handling of Initializable, such
> as adding a separate interface called during builder.newInstance(), meant
> for the Composite (i.e. resolved to a single mixin method call), and later
> figure out how to do Invariants.
> OR, we could tackle this head on, and figure out how such generic hook
> mechanism is supposed to work, and how to refactor a bunch of core
> functionality into pluggable parts.
>
> To me, the latter sounds like the "right" but "slow" thing to do. If it
> sounds reasonable to do this ( a 4.0 release in a year or so), then the
> next steps would be to identify all the hooks that are needed, define the
> mechanism and then start the refactoring.
>
> WDYAT?
>
>
> 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