Or even better, don't need StyleManager? Throw it out completely and save a buttload of memory :)
On 4 January 2012 22:31, Jonathan Campos <jonbcam...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- regards, Roland -- Roland Zwaga Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | http://www.stackandheap.com
