Agreed. Let's discuss about this in the next meeting.

On 10/27/2014 10:49 AM, Antonio Goncalves wrote:

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@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@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 | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

--
Antonio Goncalves 
Software architect and Java Champion

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

--
Antonio Goncalves 
Software architect and Java Champion

Web site | Twitter | LinkedIn | Paris JUG | Devoxx France

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

_______________________________________________
forge-dev mailing list
forge-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev