Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [dsdp-tm-dev] RE: SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory ??


Hi Martin,

By the adapters, I don't mean the view adapters, I mean the thing that takes a subsystem-independent IHostFile and wrappers it to make it a subsystem-dependent IRemoteFile.

1) In RSE 7, there never was a service, service adapter and all that replaceable stuff so the concepts have changed slightly
2) Does a subsystem configuration really need to delegate - wouldn't it know exactly what it needs to create?  I mean, I don't see the need for factories to be contributions to a configuration.
3) For this case are you suggesting no extension point for the factory - just for the configuration, implying the factory?


____________________________________
David McKnight    
Phone:   905-413-3902 , T/L:  969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail:       D1/140/8200/TOR
____________________________________



"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

11/08/2006 09:58 AM

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 absolutely agree: There needs to be one place that holds all these factories
together. Note that currently, these are _not_ all in one place since the
RemoteElementAdapters are typically registered by the activator, and not
by the configuration.
 
The place that's holding all things together could be
 
1.) The ISubSystemFactory class.
     That's how it has been in RSE 7, the class has been renamed to ISubSystemConfiguration.
     I don't like the plain renaming because it's misleading.
 
2.) An ISubSystemConfiguration class.
     But then, the configuration should not take on duties of the factory (by deriving from
     the factory), but it should delegate to the various factories where needed. That's
     in-line with the common best practice that "composition" of classes is usually better
     than "extending" classes in order to add functionality.
 
3.) The subSystemConfiguration extension point.
     This would allow for plain "reconfiguration" of existing services, by naming existing
     factories where needed. Compared to (2), it's basically the same pattern but moving
     from a programmatic approach to a data-driven approach. This might eventually
     be helpful if we want to support headless (UI-less) operation by instanciating only
     service classes instead of the full-blown UI-dependent classes from a headless
     application.
 
I'm most inclined towards (3), and I see the path towards it gradual: Leave everything
in the factory for now (because this _is_ how things still work), and split out the
various tasks into separate factories or a configuration class gradually.
 
Thanks for your thoughts and discussion!
I consider this really exciting and helpful.

Thanks,
--
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:
Friday, August 11, 2006 3:16 PM
To:
Oberhuber, Martin
Cc:
Target Management developer discussions
Subject:
RE: [dsdp-tm-dev] RE: SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory ??



Hi Martin,


So do you think we'd need an IServiceFactory for the configuration?  If we start down that path, then we also need IConnectorServiceFactory, and then depending on the underlying model, we'd need something to create service model to subsystem model adapters, such as
IHostFileToRemoteFileAdapter, which converts IHostFile to IRemoteFile.  The other thing is that some subsystems have additional services, such as the ISearchService for files - would that just be created from the IServiceFactory?  For each of these factories, we'd still need one object to hold them altogether so that there's a clean switch when you change from one configuration to another for a given subsystem.  The concept of service didn't exist when the documentation was written, so I'm not sure it buys us that much there if we role up the configuration into the factory.

____________________________________
David McKnight    
Phone:   905-413-3902 , T/L:  969-3902
Internet: dmcknigh@xxxxxxxxxx
Mail:       D1/140/8200/TOR
____________________________________



"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

11/08/2006 08:52 AM


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 thought about your suggestion again.

 

We'll probably need a bit more time to sort out the actual details of separating

ISubSystemConfiguration from ISubSystemFactory. What's important for me,

though, is that whenever a class is responsible for creating something, I'd like

to name it "...Factory".

 

Bringing back the name ISubSystemFactory instead of ISubSystemConfiguration,

for what essentially _is_ a factory, has the very big advantage that all documentation

referring to ...factories would be correct again. And that's a lot!!

 

For me it looks like even if a user re-uses an existing FileServiceSubSystemFactory,

he'd supply his own IFileService. In other words, the configuration would need to name

a factory for creating IFileService objects, wouldn't it?

 

The extension point, finally, names a "type" or "configuration" of subsystem. Elements

of the extension point (which is a configuration) can be the ISubSystemFactory class,

the IConnectorService class, and the IServiceFactory class. Such an extension point
would (I think) make the duplicate code for the current factories eventually unnecessary,

and all the "plumbing" of the configuration would occur via the extension point.

 

The extension point would be the "configuration" but it would name the factory
classes which are responsible for creating objects of proper type.

 

This would also be a little bit in line with what the Platform does for
extension points

 
org.eclipse.update.core.featureTypes  --> element <feature-factory>
  org.eclipse.update.core.siteTypes  --> element <site-factory>
 

I suggest we go ahead with renaming classes accordingly for now. I'll send out

a separate E-mail with requested refactorings. We can think about the split-up
later on if we want -- it would affect the code much less than doing all at once,
since it would just be one additional item in the extension point.

 

How does that sound?

 

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 Martin Oberhuber
Sent:
Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:19 PM
To:
David McKnight
Cc:
Target Management developer discussions
Subject:
Re: [dsdp-tm-dev] RE: SubSystemConfiguration vs. SubSystemFactory ??


Hi Dave,

ahh, now I see! Your suggestion sounds excellent.

I guess there's still a few things to sort out, like where does the ConnectorService come from (would there be
ISubSystemConfiguration.getConnectorService()?
Then, what about methods like supportsFilters() which are more a static configuration property than a dynamic one and thus be more associated with the factory, than the actual config -- after all they define capabilities of the subsystem implementation, and not its actual configuration.

Finally, the extension point... should the extension point name both the config and the factory classes?
Or should the config have a method like getSubSystemFactory()?

For me it sounds like the config is "above" the factory, it's like the master putting all items together.

Cheers,
Martin




David McKnight schrieb:


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


Back to the top