On 8/10/07, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Guys hi steve
> +1 to using DI, -1 to static initializers for anything other than types > without dependencies, for example, primitives and Strings. in general, i agree in this case, though, the possibility of a 0.2 release needs to be considered > To be fair, the lunatic (me) that originally wrote this stuff did say (in a > post or jira, I can't remember which) that this was a proof of concept which > should be refactored to use injection and was at best alpha. To be honest, > I'm astounded that it has stood up as well as it has. > > As to the synchronization issues, the lazy initialization pattern (that > Stefano so loves) is not an accident. The intent is that in deployments > where synchronization is required, you subclass to add synchronization, > normally just on the getter method. In single threaded or per thread > environments, the vanilla code is just fine. I hate synchronization being > imposed when it is not required. Similairly, if you want to avoid lazy > initialisation with this pattern, you just invoke the getter earlier, such > as in the constructor of the using class. Just please not in a static > initialiser which is invoked when the class is loaded, which occurs who > knows when! mostly in agreement > I can't claim I applied these rules in the initial drop of jSieve. I never > explored the areas requiring synchronization. Good luck with this :) > > Anyway, thanks to all of you for taking this on and cleaning it up. > > Unfortunately, I've way too many other commitments to get involved beyond > the occasional (worthless?) post. it's always good to hear from you :-) i'd like to be able to cut a 0.2 release sometime soon. though static initialisers worry me too, creating a ThreadLocal instance is relatively low risk. if i were to refactoring the code base to introduce IoC, there's a definite risk that i'll break something. i would prefer to release a patched up version of the current code base (including the static initialiser i introduced to fix the null pointer bug) and then refactor trunk towards IoC. i agree that this needs to be fixed properly before a 1.0 release, though. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
