Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pcgen_developers] Re: Facets Implementation Feedback

Expand Messages
  • Tom Parker
    The addToken calls are dealing with Tokens that are different interfaces and don t share common characteristics.  So generics there would be a lot less
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 26, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The addToken calls are dealing with Tokens that are different interfaces and don't share common characteristics.  So generics there would be a lot less valuable.  In the case of the PObjects/CDOMObjects, we have a dozen or so items that share behavior and how they should be processed.  This is the exact use case Generics was designed for, in order to avoid the copy-paste anti-pattern.

      TP.
      --
      Tom Parker
      thpr@... and tppublic@...

      --- On Wed, 8/26/09, Connor Petty <mistercpp2000@...> wrote:

      From: Connor Petty <mistercpp2000@...>
      Subject: Re: [pcgen_developers] Re: Facets Implementation Feedback
      To: pcgen_developers@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 10:09 PM

      I agree, when it comes to dealing with the Class class, generics
      becomes extremely difficult to handle. I just don't bother using
      generics in this particular instance. You can see what I mean in the
      addToken calls in my PluginLibrary class!

      On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:43 PM, thpr<thpr@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > --- In pcgen_developers@yahoogroups.com, James Dempsey <jdempsey@...> wrote:
      >> I was
      >> surprised by the generics hitting quite so quickly, such that the
      >> concrete object DomainFacet was empty. :) I can see the benefit in
      >> reused code though.
      >
      > It's almost to the point of being hard for me NOT to use Generics ... It
      > does save effort though since things like TemplateFacet can leverage the
      > same code (and tests, etc.) to avoid duplication and copy/paste error. At
      > some point you have to wonder if the DomainFacet is worth it, or whether you
      > simply store it in PlayerCharacter as a ListFacet<Domain> similar to how the
      > LST file loaders are stored as GenericLoader<T> in LstSystemLoader.
      >
      >> One question - is there any benefit using Class<?> in the cache key
      >> rather than the plain Class ?
      >
      > Eliminating a compiler warning for Generics. I run with those warnings on,
      > because there are actual issues that can be exposed by not using Generics
      > (especially when you are dealing with classes coded for Generics). Therefore
      > it reduces the number of warnings I have to look at in the PCGen code.
      > Functionally, Generics are stripped out when the .class file is created, so
      > regardless of the value in the angled brackets (or lack of angled brackets),
      > the resulting code is identical.
      >
      >> The FacetLibrary works well for a demo, but if we are going down the DI
      >> route, it will not be necessary. [snip]
      >
      > Absolutely agree. I hope we do DI and thus FacetLibrary is just a bridge to
      > that implementation.
      >
      > TP.
      >
      >


      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_developers/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_developers/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          mailto:pcgen_developers-digest@yahoogroups.com
          mailto:pcgen_developers-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          pcgen_developers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


      start: 0000-00-00 end: 0000-00-00
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.