Yes, interesting question this one, since you on one hand want to keep
code free of Qi4j specific stuff as well, right.
So, let's say we have
public interface Def
{
Property<String> habba();
Property<Integer> zout();
}
public interface Abc
{}
where Abc needs to create Def instances for some reason. Both are
composite in nature, but we want to avoid @Structure injection in
either one.
so in the Abc mixins could do;
public class AbcMixin
implements Abc
{
private DefFactory factory;
public AbcMixin( @Service DefFactory factory )
{
this.factory = factory;
}
:
:
Def def = factory.create( args );
:
:
}
That is fairly straight forward.
Can this be made more generic??
Well, the minimalistic view would be;
public interface InstanceFactory<T>
{
T create( Object... args );
}
But that makes the argument-to-prototype state setting impossible...
How about?
public interface InstanceFactory<T>
{
}
public interface DefFactory extends InstanceFactory<Def>
{
Def create( String habba, Integer zout );
}
but AFAIU, it is not possible to extract the names of the arguments
and type alone is not good enough, so no matching can be inferred by a
generic implementation.
Then we end up with
public interface DefFactory extends InstanceFactory<Def>
{
Def create( Def template );
}
where the Def provided is "cloned" from a POJO or a Composite.
But then you still end with a lot of lines of code to set up the Pojo.
So, all in all, I think that custom made factories seems to be the
simplest way forward. But I wanted to elaborate on my thinking, and
asking if anyone else see some other way that is better....
Cheers
Niclas
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
