The problem gets a bit hairy on parts of the framework that aren't readily accessible (managers/singletons). These would be the first target for DI, allowing swappable components following good interfaces.
Don't like StyleManager? Have a lightweight focus manager specifically for mobile? DI could help you switch these out without rewriting UIComponent. On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Roland Zwaga <rol...@stackandheap.com>wrote: > I think everyone's pretty much on the same page as you Mike :) > Describing component functionality using sane interfaces will *allow* DI > much more easily. If some type of configuration for this can be supported > by the SDK, that would be awesome because existing DI frameworks could hook > into those so that way everyone can keep on using their favorite > application framework. > > cheers, > > ROland > > On 4 January 2012 22:24, Michael Schmalle <m...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: > > > This is just a weird thought and I have no opinion on DI since it's like > > religion to most. > > > > Isn't the idea of OOP polymorphism, and the way you create it is through > > abstract interfaces? Correct me if I'm wrong here. > > > > Maybe I am from another planet but it seems to me, that the strength in > > Apache is to allow a democratic approach to creating a protocol agreed to > > by the majority of the community. > > > > What is the problem on agreeing on some interfaces that could be put in > > the core, for other outside DI libraries to implement. > > > > In this way, you would have a standard but allow anybody to create there > > own implementation. At the same time without having a concrete > > implementation IN the SDK you could still use the interfaces that could > > provide "sockets" for DI without the dependencies. > > > > Just a thought, this is the same thought I have about component design. > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > Quoting Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque <roge...@rogeliocastillo.com>: > > > > I agree on modularity, but I reckon dependency injection is a totally > >> different thing which has lots of very good libs out there... not sure > if > >> that should be part of the SDK. > >> > >> I believe that the focus should be on splitting the SDK into several > >> modules/libs, then think on interface design. > >> > >> R > >> > >> --- > >> Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque > >> roge...@rogeliocastillo.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 4/01/2012, at 6:11 PM, João Saleiro wrote: > >> > >> +1 > >>> > >>> I agree with reducing strong-coupled dependencies as the first > priority. > >>> > >>> I would also complement the use of interfaces with: > >>> > >>> - using dependency injection when possible > >>> - splitting the SDK into several libraries > >>> - support and advocate the use of Maven for managing dependencies (or > >>> something similar) > >>> > >>> > >>> João Saleiro > >>> > >>> On 04-01-2012 21:03, Michael Schmalle wrote: > >>> > >>>> Continuing the thread from "Committer duties and information" > >>>> > >>>> about setting interface priority to #1 in the future development fo > >>>> Flex. > >>>> > >>>> Mike > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > regards, > Roland > > -- > Roland Zwaga > Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA > > +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | > http://www.stackandheap.com > -- Jonathan Campos Dallas Flex User Group Manager http://www.d-flex.org/ blog: http://www.unitedmindset.com/jonbcampos twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jonbcampos
