[jira] Updated: (TUSCANY-1280) Use singleton factory pattern for default factories

["Simon Nash (JIRA)" <tu...@ws.apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1280?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Simon Nash updated TUSCANY-1280:
--------------------------------

    Summary: Use singleton factory pattern for default factories  (was: Use singleton factory pattern for )

> Use singleton factory pattern for default factories
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TUSCANY-1280
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUSCANY-1280
>             Project: Tuscany
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Java SCA Kernel
>    Affects Versions: Java-SCA-0.90
>         Environment: Windows XP
>            Reporter: Simon Nash
>         Assigned To: Simon Nash
>             Fix For: Java-SCA-0.90
>
>
> DefaultAssemblyFactory, DefaultPolicyFactory, DefaultWSDLFactory, and DefaultWebServiceBindingFactory are SPIs that extend from non-SPI factory implementation code.  A cleaner solution is to use a singleton factory pattern to avoid the need for SPI classes to extend from non-SPI implementation classes.. See discussion from http://www.mail-archive.com/tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org/msg17590.html quoted below
> >>> 3. DefaultAssemblyFactory is in the interface package
> >>>    org.apache.tuscany.assembly, but it extends from AssemblyFactoryImpl
> >>>    which is in the implementation package 
> >>> org.apache.tuscany.assembly.impl.
> >>>    This means that "impl" code is showing up indirectly as part of an
> >>>    SPI interface.  The same arrangement is used for 
> >>> DefaultPolicyFactory,
> >>>    DefaultWSDLFactory, and DefaultWebServiceBindingFactory.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't find this shocking and I don't have a better (and reasonably 
> >> simple) idea to improve this. Do you have a proposal?
> >> - move the XyzDefaultFactory to the impl package?
> >> - get rid of XyzDefaultFactory and have the people new up a 
> >> XyzFactoryImpl directly?
> >> - any other suggestion?
> >>
> > On further consideration, I think this pattern is OK because there's
> > no direct reference from extension code to any impl class.  Other
> > arrangements are possible, such as:
> > 
> >   package org.apache.tuscany.assembly;
> > 
> >   import org.apache.tuscany.assembly.impl.AssemblyFactoryImpl;
> > 
> >   public class DefaultAssemblyFactory {
> > 
> >       private static AssemblyFactory defaultFactory;
> > 
> >       public static AssemblyFactory getDefaultFactory() {
> >           if (defaultFactory == null)
> >               defaultFactory = new AssemblyFactoryImpl();
> >           return defaultFactory;
> >       }
> >   }
> > 
> > I think this is slightly cleaner, but it's not a big deal one way
> > or the other.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org