RE: [platform-ui-dev] Component framework proposal version 1.0.4 availab

[Stefan Xenos <Stefan_Xenos@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm good with renaming the class
attribute to implementation and the interface attribute
to parameter if everyone else is.

There is no plan to support setter injection.
Supporting two ways of doing the same thing will make downstream code inconsistent.
The only reason I mention the "optional parameters" pattern in
the specification is to ensure consistency. If this wasn't part of the
framework, then 100s of downstream plugins would end up registering their
own IOptionalParameters interface.

  - Stefan

"Ed Burnette" <Ed.Burnette@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: platform-ui-dev-admin@xxxxxxxxxxx

11/09/2004 10:43 PM

Please respond to
platform-ui-dev

To	<platform-ui-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [platform-ui-dev] Component framework proposal version 1.0.4 available

>            
    For more on constructor injection, see www.picocontainer.org.

Ok, after reading picocontainer.org and the references there it makes more
sense. You should definitely include that in the doc.

>                
I suspect you're commenting on the heavy usage of the word "interface".
Would
> "specification" be better? 

No, that would be worse. Maybe you should use the PicoContainer terminology
such as parameters and implementations.

The Fowler paper at http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html
recommends that frameworks implement both Constructor and Setter injection.
Also it doesn't have anything about your optional parameters (section 2.8).
Since you're discouraging optional parameters yourself, if you had Setter
injection maybe optional parameters wouldn't be needed at all.
_______________________________________________
platform-ui-dev mailing list
platform-ui-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-ui-dev