[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
RE: [dsdp-tm-dev] RE: SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory ??
|
I'm seeing the value of the configuration
not so much for things like "isCaseSensitive" but for providing
the actual service implementations. We define the FileServiceSubSystem
independently of any service implementation. Currently the means
of providing each service implementation is via each the subsystem configuration
however each is also the thign that creates the subsystem. Each
subsystem configuration does some redundant thing - they each create FileServiceSubSystem.
RSE does allow you to switch configurations and thus thus services
such that the subsystem configuration that was intially used to create
the subsystem would no longer be used after a subsystem configuration gets
switched, which is kind of weird. That problem would be solved with
an independent factory.
If no subsystem configurations are contributed
then there would never been a subsystem to create, so I don't see the value
of having a default configuration. I guess I'm sort of thinking along
these lines:
class FileServiceSubSystemFactory
implements ISubSystemFactory {
public ISubSystem
createSubSystemInternal(ISubSystemConfiguration initialConfiguration) {
return
new FileServiceSubSystem( initialConfiguration, ... );
}
}
There would never be an SshFileServieSubSystem,
nor a DStoreFileServiceSubSystem - there's only FileServiceSubSystem with
a configuration that provides the service implementation.
class SshSubSystemConfiguration
implements ISubSystemConfiguration {
public boolean
isCaseSensitive() { return true; }
public IFileService
getFileService(IHost host);
....
}
Does that make any sense?
____________________________________
David McKnight
Phone: 905-413-3902 , T/L: 969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail: D1/140/8200/TOR
____________________________________
"Oberhuber, Martin"
<Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
10/08/2006 12:44 PM
|
To
| David McKnight/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
|
cc
| "Target Management developer discussions"
<dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
Subject
| RE: [dsdp-tm-dev] RE: SubSystemConfiguration
vs. SubSystemFactory ?? |
|
Hi Dave,
I'm afraid I cannot follow you
thoroughly.
I didn't think about contributing
the configuration and the factory separately, but
only provide an extension point
for the factory. The factory would be responsible
for creating the subsystem, and
its initial configuration. I wouldn't see what the
advantage of separate contributions
for configuration and factory would be.
We probably shouldn't deviate
from what we currently have too much right now.
Currently, we have a static configuration
that is tied 1:1 to the factory. With my
proposed change, the factory could
provide configurations that are not so much
tied to it any more, and thus
more flexible.
I didn't think about persisting
modified configurations though, so allowing
configurations to change at runtime
is probably something to consider for
2.0 (and keeping them static for
now).
Perhaps an example could help:
class SshSubSystemFactory implements
ISubSystemFactory {
public ISubSystem
createSubSystemInternal() {
return
new SshSubSystem( getDefaultConfiguration(), ... );
}
public ISubSystemConfiguration
getDefaultConfiguration {
//the
configuration can be an anonymous inner class,
//or
a real class defined outside
return
new DefaultSubSystemConfiguration {
// define overriders here
public boolean isCaseSensitive() { return true; }
}
}
}
Or, if we want to keep code
closer to what it is right now:
class SshSubSystemFactory implements
ISubSystemFactory, ISubSystemConfiguration {
public ISubSystem
createSubSystemInternal() {
return
new SshSubSystem( this, ... );
}
public boolean isCaseSensitive()
{ return true; }
}
In both cases, the Subsystem
can replace its current configuration with
something different later on.
Another option, for DStore for
instance, would be to have
class DStoreWindowsSubSystemConfiguration
extends DefaultSubSystemConfiguration {
public boolean isCaseSensitive()
{ return true; }
}
class DStoreUnixSubSystemConfiguration
extends DefaultSubSystemConfiguration {
public boolean isCaseSensitive()
{ return false; }
}
Comments?
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:dsdp-tm-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David McKnight
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:01 PM
To: David Dykstal
Cc: Oberhuber, Martin; Target Management developer discussions
Subject: [dsdp-tm-dev] RE: SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory
??
I like the idea but I'm thinking that it would be good to still keep the
service creation with the configuration rather than the factory. There
could be a single factory for each different type of service subsystem:
Example:
FileServiceSubSystemFactory --> produces
--> FileServiceSubSystem
ShellServiceSubSystemFactory --> produces
--> ShellServiceSubSystem
ProcessServiceSubSystemFactory --> produces
--> ProcessServiceSubSystem
...
The factory would be responsible for the lifecycle of the subsystem but
would use the configuration to define, not only the attributes in terms
of "isCaseSensitive()" and such but also the services themselves.
The factory could use the the current to setup the service configuration
for a subsystem. For each, service there could be a different configuration:
Example:
DStoreFileServiceConfiguration
SSHFileServiceConfguration
FTPFileServiceConfiguration
A given factory may use one of the available configurations for creating
the subsystem as well as changing it's configuration - for example, when
switching between FTP and DStore.
If we were to take this approach, we could keep the configuration extension
point pretty much the same - since it's really there to contribute the
services, but we'd need to introduce a new extension point for the subsystem
factory. So there would be a FileServiceSubSystemFactory contribution
before any service configurations are defined.
What do you think of this?
____________________________________
David McKnight
Phone: 905-413-3902 , T/L: 969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail: D1/140/8200/TOR
____________________________________
David Dykstal/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
10/08/2006 10:13 AM
|
To
| "Oberhuber, Martin"
<Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
| "David McKnight" <dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx>,
"Target Management developer discussions" <dsdp-tm-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Kushal Munir" <kmunir@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
Subject
| RE: SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory
??Link |
|
Interesting idea.
In most cases where we have to grab the SubSystemConfiguration from the
subsystem we would continue to do so. So its possible this won't
be as bad as I initially suspected. This is a pretty pervasive hit though
and it affects the extension points. Would you expect to define both subystem
factory and subsystem configuration extension points independently or would
a subsystem factory provide a subsystem configuration to the subsystems
it creates?
_______________________
David Dykstal
david_dykstal@xxxxxxxxxx