On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:27:53 +1000, Robert Collins <robert.coll...@canonical.com> wrote: > A few small thoughts if I may. > > Yay to looser coupling. > > Sadness at more global state (vs directly expressed dependencies, > directly injected connections).
I'm not sure what you mean here. > Using 'import everything' for your dependency injection seems risky > (but I haven't quantified it) to me. Everything isn't a core part of the design, just the easiest thing to express in that one mail. We can vary this part as needed. > Lastly, I think that you'd want to check the performance of the global > lookup you're adding. Globals are generally evil, and adding more > doesn't really feel like a solution to me. I agree that it should be considered, but for the root wadl you have to load everything in anyway, so I don't think there will be a significant impact there. If there are times when we don't have everything loaded and want to list the methods, or find whether a particlar method is valid/where it should be dispatched to then there will be a cost. It would be possible to avoid this my having references to other interfaces to look for webservice declarations on that didn't use symbols, and used strings or something instead. That would avoid the global nature, but at a cost. In addition, having "additive" behaviour, where features are enabled and disabled as you install different parts of Launchpad, while something that is a long way from actually being possible, would be tougher with that approach. As a parallel, it might be worth seeing it as wanting to provide "hook points", similar to bzr, where plugins can extend/modify behaviour, but the core doesn't know anything about the details of the plugins. Thanks, James _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
