[forge-dev] Getting lost in UICommands class hierarchy

[Antonio Goncalves]

This refactoring is quite important, we should talk about this during the
next meeting. I would be more than happy to try to do it, but I fear to
break any tests or backward compatibility issue...

2014-10-27 13:43 GMT+01:00 George Gastaldi <ggastald at redhat.com>:

>  Great, so +1 to that.
>
>
> On 10/27/2014 10:41 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>
> The extra layer of AbstractValidationCommand, AbstractCDICommand,
> AbstractJPACommand (notice that this layer already exists for JSF) is
> justified by overriding isProjectRequired and getPrerequisiteCommands (all
> the Java EE commands need a project and need to be setup, see the code
> below).
>
>  Then, if you say that the interface is optional, I would get rid of it.
>
>  All in all, I think that homogenize the code is very important for new
> comers (like me). Creating a new command is, mostly, copy/paste + adding
> some specific logic. And depending which class you copy/paste, you end up
> with very different code.
>
>  Antonio
>
>
>  @Override
> *protected boolean *isProjectRequired()
> {
>    *return true*;
> }
>     @Override
>    public NavigationResult getPrerequisiteCommands(UIContext context)
>    {
>       NavigationResultBuilder builder = NavigationResultBuilder.create();
>       Project project = getSelectedProject(context);
>       if (project != null)
>       {
>          if (!project.hasFacet(CDIFacet.class))
>          {
>             builder.add(CDISetupCommand.class);
>          }
>       }
>       return builder.build();
>    }
>
>
> 2014-10-27 13:35 GMT+01:00 George Gastaldi <ggastald at redhat.com>:
>
>>  Hi Antonio,
>>
>> Yeah, I think that's fine. The idea of having an interface is to
>> reference the next command in the next() method (or as a prerequisite), but
>> that is optional.
>> I think that would be a good idea, if these specializations had enough
>> code to justify their existence.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/27/2014 02:58 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:
>>
>>   Hi all,
>>
>>  I'm trying to add more commands in Forge... but I have to say, I'm a
>> bit lost. So, I've made a quick UML class diagram.
>>
>>  As you can see in the attached diagram (UIForge.png), most of the Java
>> EE commands extend AbstractJavaEECommand, which makes sense. But not all of
>> them (NewBeanCommand (CDI), ValidationNewAnnotationCommandImpl,
>> NewQualifierCommand....). And some times you have an extra level of
>> abstraction (AbstractFacesCommand). Same for the Java commands.
>> JavaClassCommandImpl extend AbstractJavaSourceCommand but
>> JavaAddAnnotationCommand and JavaFieldCommand inherit from
>> AbstractProjectCommand.
>>
>>
>>  Then, when you dive into a command (UIForgeStructure.pgn), some
>> commands use interface and implementation (see in the second
>> diagram JavaAddAnnotationCommandImpl
>> implementing JavaAddAnnotationCommand), some don't
>> (e.g. NewQualifierCommand). Is there a reason ?
>>
>>
>>  Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I see it would be (HowIseeIt.png)
>> : under AbstractJavaEECommand you have a set
>> of AbstractValidationCommand, AbstractCDICommand, AbstractJPACommand....
>> each implementing PrerequisiteCommandsProvider (this way, each command sets
>> up its own pre-requisite). And then, under AbstractCDICommand you have all
>> the NewQualifierCommand, NewBeanCommand....
>>
>>
>>  What do you think ? Am I the only one getting a little bit lost ;o)
>>
>>  What do you think of re-structuring the class hierarchy ?
>>
>>  --
>> Antonio Goncalves
>> Software architect and Java Champion
>>
>> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter
>> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG
>> <http://www.parisjug.org/> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr/>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing listforge-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> forge-dev mailing list
>> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>>
>
>
>
>  --
> Antonio Goncalves
> Software architect and Java Champion
>
> Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal> | Paris JUG
> <http://www.parisjug.org/> | Devoxx France <http://www.devoxx.fr/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing listforge-dev at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>



-- 
Antonio Goncalves
Software architect and Java Champion

Web site <http://www.antoniogoncalves.org/> | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/agoncal> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/agoncal>
 | Paris JUG <http://www.parisjug.org/> | Devoxx France
<http://www.devoxx.fr/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20141027/6e100f51/attachment.html