Niclas Hedhman created ZEST-129:
-----------------------------------
Summary: 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;
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.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
