[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move components out of the internal package for the rendering module
8 Mar
2009
8 Mar
'09
9:45 a.m.
Hi,
Some time ago we agreed that component implementations should be
located in the internal package. I now believe it's wrong if we want
to allow users to use our modules separately from the rest of XWiki as
standard java beans. I think it's a good property to have that users
can integrate our modules into their own code without taking the whole
of XWiki. This is what I'm trying to do with the rendering module.
Thus I'm proposing to move the components out of the internal module
*only* for the rendering module for now even though I suspect that
we'll want to do that for all modules eventually.
Here's my +1
Thanks
-Vincent
8 Mar
8 Mar
10:31 a.m.
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
Some time ago we agreed that component implementations should be
located in the internal package. I now believe it's wrong if we want
to allow users to use our modules separately from the rest of XWiki as
standard java beans. I think it's a good property to have that users
can integrate our modules into their own code without taking the whole
of XWiki. This is what I'm trying to do with the rendering module.
Thus I'm proposing to move the components out of the internal module
*only* for the rendering module for now even though I suspect that
we'll want to do that for all modules eventually.
Here's my +1
What's the advantage? Or, what's wrong with keeping the internal
package? Apart from a longer package name, there's no bound semantics on
such a package. IMO it even has the advantage that it clearly delimits
interfaces and abstract base classes from implementations.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
12:02 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move components out of the internal package for the rendering module
On Mar 8, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Vincent Massol wrote:
We should keep the internal package for sure for whatever is internal.
What it means here is that the component implementation classes are
public classes.
Hi,
Some time ago we agreed that component implementations should be
located in the internal package. I now believe it's wrong if we want
to allow users to use our modules separately from the rest of XWiki
as
standard java beans. I think it's a good property to have that users
can integrate our modules into their own code without taking the
whole
of XWiki. This is what I'm trying to do with the rendering module.
Thus I'm proposing to move the components out of the internal module
*only* for the rendering module for now even though I suspect that
we'll want to do that for all modules eventually.
Here's my +1
What's the advantage? Or, what's wrong with keeping the internal
package? Apart from a longer package name, there's no bound
semantics on
such a package. IMO it even has the advantage that it clearly delimits
interfaces and abstract base classes from implementations.
The user will write for example:
Parser parser = new WikiModelXWikiParser(...);
parser.parse(new StringReader("**whatever**");
...
So this makes WikiModelXWikiParser public (this is an example but is
true for all other components - or almost all of them).
Thanks
-Vincent
9 Mar
9 Mar
12:26 p.m.
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Vincent Massol wrote:
I agree to Sergiu. Keeping the implementation and the specifications
separately provides more accuracy to our api.
Hi,
Some time ago we agreed that component implementations should be
located in the internal package. I now believe it's wrong if we want
to allow users to use our modules separately from the rest of XWiki as
standard java beans. I think it's a good property to have that users
can integrate our modules into their own code without taking the whole
of XWiki. This is what I'm trying to do with the rendering module.
Thus I'm proposing to move the components out of the internal module
*only* for the rendering module for now even though I suspect that
we'll want to do that for all modules eventually.
Here's my +1
What's the advantage? Or, what's wrong with keeping the internal
package? Apart from a longer package name, there's no bound semantics on
such a package. IMO it even has the advantage that it clearly delimits
interfaces and abstract base classes from implementations.
12:41 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move components out of the internal package for the rendering module
On Mar 9, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Dan Miron wrote:
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
The only possibility to keep our "component" implementation classes
non user-public is to add user-public factory classes.
ParserFactory parserFactory = new DefaultParserFactory();
Parser parser = parserFactory.createParser(new
XWikiSyntax(SyntaxType.XWIKI, "2.0"));
parser.parse(new StringReader("**whatever**");
...
instead of:
Parser parser = new WikiModelXWikiParser(...);
parser.parse(new StringReader("**whatever**");
...
Note that these factory classes will need to have user-public
implementations of course so this is swapping one problem for another
(albeit smaller). Also, it means that we have an extra class that is
useless when using components.
Now while this works quite well for parsers since there are different
implementations for them, it's going to be a real pita for most other
components which have only a default implementation. For example, I
don't see us writing:
TransformationManagerFactory transformationManagerFactory = new
DefaultTransformationManagerFactory();
TransformationManager transformationManager =
transformationManagerFactory.createTransformationManager();
transformationManager.performTransformations(...);
instead of:
TransformationManager transformationManager = new
DefaultTransformationManager();
transformationManager.performTransformations(...);
Now the first one to suggest using singleton pattern and statics gets
a blame... :)
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
Vincent Massol wrote:
I agree to Sergiu. Keeping the implementation and the specifications
separately provides more accuracy to our api. Hi,
Some time ago we agreed that component implementations should be
located in the internal package. I now believe it's wrong if we want
to allow users to use our modules separately from the rest of
XWiki as
standard java beans. I think it's a good property to have that users
can integrate our modules into their own code without taking the
whole
of XWiki. This is what I'm trying to do with the rendering module.
Thus I'm proposing to move the components out of the internal module
*only* for the rendering module for now even though I suspect that
we'll want to do that for all modules eventually.
Here's my +1
What's the advantage? Or, what's wrong with keeping the internal
package? Apart from a longer package name, there's no bound
semantics on
such a package. IMO it even has the advantage that it clearly
delimits
interfaces and abstract base classes from implementations.
1:58 p.m.
Vincent Massol wrote:
On Mar 9, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Dan Miron wrote:
Vincent, I don't understand what's the problem with keeping the package
name as it is now? There's nothing that prevents users (API users) to
instantiate classes in the internal package. The only thing that changes
is the import statement, the same constructor can be used. And with
modern development tools the package is transparent.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
The only possibility to keep our "component" implementation classes
non user-public is to add user-public factory classes.
ParserFactory parserFactory = new DefaultParserFactory();
Parser parser = parserFactory.createParser(new
XWikiSyntax(SyntaxType.XWIKI, "2.0"));
parser.parse(new StringReader("**whatever**");
...
instead of:
Parser parser = new WikiModelXWikiParser(...);
parser.parse(new StringReader("**whatever**");
...
Note that these factory classes will need to have user-public
implementations of course so this is swapping one problem for another
(albeit smaller). Also, it means that we have an extra class that is
useless when using components.
Now while this works quite well for parsers since there are different
implementations for them, it's going to be a real pita for most other
components which have only a default implementation. For example, I
don't see us writing:
TransformationManagerFactory transformationManagerFactory = new
DefaultTransformationManagerFactory();
TransformationManager transformationManager =
transformationManagerFactory.createTransformationManager();
transformationManager.performTransformations(...);
instead of:
TransformationManager transformationManager = new
DefaultTransformationManager();
transformationManager.performTransformations(...);
Now the first one to suggest using singleton pattern and statics gets
a blame... :)
WDYT? Vincent Massol wrote:
I agree to Sergiu. Keeping the implementation and the specifications
separately provides more accuracy to our api. Hi,
Some time ago we agreed that component implementations should be
located in the internal package. I now believe it's wrong if we want
to allow users to use our modules separately from the rest of
XWiki as
standard java beans. I think it's a good property to have that users
can integrate our modules into their own code without taking the
whole
of XWiki. This is what I'm trying to do with the rendering module.
Thus I'm proposing to move the components out of the internal module
*only* for the rendering module for now even though I suspect that
we'll want to do that for all modules eventually.
Here's my +1
What's the advantage? Or, what's wrong with keeping the internal
package? Apart from a longer package name, there's no bound
semantics on
such a package. IMO it even has the advantage that it clearly
delimits
interfaces and abstract base classes from implementations.
2:05 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move components out of the internal package for the rendering module
On Mar 9, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
Vincent Massol wrote:
The internal package name means that users must never use classes
inside these package since they're not user-public. If they do they do
it at their own risk and we're not committing ourselves to keep any
code located in the internal package.
See http://jakarta.apache.org/cactus/participating/apis.html and
http://www.eclipse.org/articles/article.php?file=Article-API-Use/index.html
It's a contract and compatibility issue. The internal package is there
because Java doesn't have the notion of user-public/non-user-public
APIs. OSGi has this notion for example since each bundle explicitly
mentions which classes are exported and thus user-public. This is the
only reason for our "internal" package.
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 9, 2009, at 12:26 PM, Dan Miron wrote:
Vincent, I don't understand what's the problem with keeping the
package
name as it is now? There's nothing that prevents users (API users) to
instantiate classes in the internal package. Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
The only possibility to keep our "component" implementation classes
non user-public is to add user-public factory classes.
ParserFactory parserFactory = new DefaultParserFactory();
Parser parser = parserFactory.createParser(new
XWikiSyntax(SyntaxType.XWIKI, "2.0"));
parser.parse(new StringReader("**whatever**");
...
instead of:
Parser parser = new WikiModelXWikiParser(...);
parser.parse(new StringReader("**whatever**");
...
Note that these factory classes will need to have user-public
implementations of course so this is swapping one problem for another
(albeit smaller). Also, it means that we have an extra class that is
useless when using components.
Now while this works quite well for parsers since there are different
implementations for them, it's going to be a real pita for most other
components which have only a default implementation. For example, I
don't see us writing:
TransformationManagerFactory transformationManagerFactory = new
DefaultTransformationManagerFactory();
TransformationManager transformationManager =
transformationManagerFactory.createTransformationManager();
transformationManager.performTransformations(...);
instead of:
TransformationManager transformationManager = new
DefaultTransformationManager();
transformationManager.performTransformations(...);
Now the first one to suggest using singleton pattern and statics gets
a blame... :)
WDYT? Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time ago we agreed that component implementations should be
> located in the internal package. I now believe it's wrong if we
> want
> to allow users to use our modules separately from the rest of
> XWiki as
> standard java beans. I think it's a good property to have that
> users
> can integrate our modules into their own code without taking the
> whole
> of XWiki. This is what I'm trying to do with the rendering module.
>
> Thus I'm proposing to move the components out of the internal
> module
> *only* for the rendering module for now even though I suspect that
> we'll want to do that for all modules eventually.
>
> Here's my +1
>
>
What's the advantage? Or, what's wrong with keeping the internal
package? Apart from a longer package name, there's no bound
semantics on
such a package. IMO it even has the advantage that it clearly
delimits
interfaces and abstract base classes from implementations.
I agree to Sergiu. Keeping the implementation and the specifications
separately provides more accuracy to our api. The only thing that changes
is the import statement, the same constructor can be used. And with
modern development tools the package is transparent.
5673
days inactive
5674
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dan Miron -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol