You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@felix.apache.org by "Pierre De Rop (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2016/03/02 00:56:18 UTC
[jira] [Updated] (FELIX-4689) Create a more fluent syntax for the
dependency manager builder
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4689?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Pierre De Rop updated FELIX-4689:
---------------------------------
Fix Version/s: (was: org.apache.felix.dependencymanager-r7)
org.apache.felix.dependencymanager-r8
> Create a more fluent syntax for the dependency manager builder
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FELIX-4689
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FELIX-4689
> Project: Felix
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Dependency Manager
> Reporter: Christian Schneider
> Assignee: Pierre De Rop
> Fix For: org.apache.felix.dependencymanager-r8
>
> Attachments: FELIX-4689-1.patch
>
>
> I wonder if the DependencyManager API could be made a bit more fluent.
> Technically it already uses the fluent builder pattern
> but all the builder verbs still look a lot like traditional setters.
> I know what I propose is mostly syntactic sugar but I think the result
> looks more readable and crisp. See below for some ideas.
> There is the concern about auto adding the component() to manager as it would acrivate the not fully configured component. We could perhaps overcome this by adding the component to a list of pending components first and then moving them to the active components after the init method.
> The camel DSL solves this similarly.
> This is from samples.dependonservice:
> public void init(BundleContext context, DependencyManager manager)
> throws Exception {
> manager.add(createComponent()
> .setImplementation(DataGenerator.class)
> .add(createServiceDependency()
> .setService(Store.class)
> .setRequired(true)
> )
> .add(createServiceDependency()
> .setService(LogService.class)
> .setRequired(false)
> )
> );
> }
> Why not make it look like this:
> public void init(BundleContext context, DependencyManager manager)
> throws Exception {
> component()
> .implementation(DataGenerator.class)
> .add(serviceDependency(Store.class).required())
> .add(serviceDependency(LogService.class))
> );
> );
> }
> component() could create and add the component.
> Or for configuration:
> public void init(BundleContext context, DependencyManager manager)
> throws Exception {
> manager.add(createComponent()
> .setImplementation(Task.class)
> .add(createConfigurationDependency()
> .setPid("config.pid")
> // The following is optional and allows to display our
> configuration from webconsole
> .setHeading("Task Configuration")
> .setDescription("Configuration for the Task Service")
> .add(createPropertyMetaData()
> .setCardinality(0)
> .setType(String.class)
> .setHeading("Task Interval")
> .setDescription("Declare here the interval used to
> trigger the Task")
> .setDefaults(new String[] {"10"})
> .setId("interval"))));
> }
> could be:
> public void init(BundleContext context, DependencyManager manager)
> throws Exception {
> component().implementation(Task.class)
> .configuration("config.pid")
> .add(meta("Task Configuration)
> .description("Configuration for the Task Service")
> .add(property("interval")
> .cardinality(0)
> .type(String.class)
> .heading("Task Interval")
> .description("Declare here the interval used
> to trigger the Task")
> .default("10"))
> }
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)