I think the pluggability of the factory is still there, same as
SCADomainFactory.newInstance().
SCADomainFactory.newInstance() can follow the typical factory pattern to
search for the sub class of SCADomainFactory.
1) The META-INF/services/org.apache.tuscany.sca.SCADomainFactory
2) The system property named as "org.apache.tuscany.sca.SCADomainFactory"
3) The default implementation class (hard-coded)
If I understand correctly, Ant was proposing to have a shortcut 1) to
replace 2).
1)
SCADomain domain =
SCADomainFactory.createSCADomain("http://mydomain:7890/asmalldomain";);
2)
SCADomainFactory domainFactory = SCADomainFactory.newInstance();
SCADomain domain =
domainFactory.createSCADomain("http://mydomain:7890/asmalldomain";);
Personally, I prefer the style 2). It's cleaner and it will be more flexible
if we have than one methods on the SCADomainFactory.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Sebastien Delfino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCA Domain
ant elder wrote:
On 10/1/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ant elder wrote:
On 9/27/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
Why all the static and abstract methods? Is there a reason SCADomain
couldn't just be an interface with a separate for
creating
instances?
I don't know. A factory works for me.
+1 for making SCADomain an interface
+1 for having a factory
So instead of:
SCADomain domain = SCADomain.newInstance(...)
We'll have:
SCADomainFactory domainFactory;
SCADomain domain = domainFactory.createSCADomain(domainURI)
Now how do people would like to the get factory? a pretty common
pattern
is:
SCADomainFactory domainFactory = SCADomainFactory.newInstance(...)
Is there a better pattern?
Does that answer the question about "why the static and abstract
methods"? :)
The question wasn't so much about why use static and abstract methods
but
why they were all munged into the one SCADomain class, now that its
accepted
that is better to have a separate SCADomain interface i think its fine
to
keep the static and abstract methods on the SCADomainFactory as that
keeps
the API simple to use. So this code:
SCADomainFactory domainFactory = SCADomainFactory.newInstance();
SCADomain domain = domainFactory.createSCADomain("
http://mydomain:7890/asmalldomain";);
could be simplified to:
SCADomain domain = SCADomainFactory.createSCADomain("
http://mydomain:7890/asmalldomain";);
...ant
Can you help me understand:
- how people will be able to plug-in different factories?
- how to pass the factory to use? I'm not sure I understand how it'll be
possible with createSCADomain() being a static method.
Thanks
--
Jean-Sebastien
Um, it would just work similarly to the current SCADomain class, the impl
of
any other static methods can still call newInstance so can still plug in
different factories.
...ant
Sorry I still don't understand how
SCADomain domain =
SCADomainFactory.createSCADomain("http://mydomain:7890/asmalldomain";);
will allow to plug-in different factories. I'm guessing how it'll allow to
plug-in different Domain implementations (like SCADomain did) but I'm
confused by the factory proposal.
What will the factory look like to allow for pluggability? and once a
factory has been selected how will it be passed around?
--
Jean-Sebastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
