Re: [jbosstools-dev] Unnecessary Dependencies
Maybe showing the +/- of each scenario would make it more obvious:
A) We keep the ESB to AS dependency:
+ Does not require module structure/dependency changes shortly before GA
++ if there is a bug in the shared code it will be fixed once and work
for all
- I have to download AS to get the shared functionality (but this is not
a big minus if you use the updatesite since there would be a dependency)
B) We copy code from AS to ESB:
+ ESB can be downloaded separately
- Changes dependency changes shortly before GA (a small minus but it
needs to be checked after all)
-- if one fixes a bug in the copied code in ESB he also need to fix this
where the code was copied from (i.e. which will be forgotten because we
are all humans)
- I have to download AS to get the ESB projects to actually deploy (but
this is not a big minus if you use the updatesite since there would be a
dependency)
C) We share code between AS to ESB in a common core
+ ESB can be downloaded separately
++ if there is a bug in the shared code it will be fixed once and work
for all
- I have to download common core (but this is not a big minus if you use
the updatesite since there would be a dependency)
-- Require module structure/dependency changes shortly before GA
So for me the copy option is the worst of all choices. Since it has a
big minus (duplication of code), but no real benefits plus moving from A
to C is easier then B to C.
If ESB and AS did not have a natural dependency and the duplicated code
was just simple - things would be different. It all depends on the context.
Dependencies are not a bad thing - but yes, in general we should
modularize our code so we don't get *unnatural* dependencies.
/max
On 12-02-2009 06:34, Rob Stryker wrote:
> So today I decided to work on JBIDE-3772 and I create a workspace
> with just ESB projects.
>
> I see immediately that it requires XModel (bleh), but that's fine I
> guess. It provides a lot of functionality. I also see, however, that
> it requires as.classpath.core.
>
> Requiring XModel is maybe justifiable as it's "common" code. The
> requirement on as.classpath.core is just to make use of an Abstract
> classpath provider that's in there.
>
> I'm not trying to call any plugin or developer out here, but I'd like
> to suggest that we try to decouple our code as much as is possible.
> If you're just borrowing one or two classes with minimal
> dependencies, would it be better to copy that class? I think it
> would be better but I'd like to hear other's thoughts.
No, copy/paste of code that is doing more than just very simple things
should not just be copied.
You don't tell what classpath provider you are copying so I can't see
what it does (and fisheye is down), but my guess is that it is the
classpth container
that manages the sourcecode and javadoc attachements - that is
excellent candidates for code to be shared.
This does not mean you should not decouple your code, but decoupling
is much more than just avoiding plugin dependencies between our plugins.
i.e. if having ESB classpath containers and deployment being dependent
on AS plugin saves us from a lot of possibly maintanence duplication
then why bother
separating them when the only adapter and server in the world that
will work with ESB is our AS plugin...in other words ESB has (IMO) a
natural dependeny on AS
hence having common code in AS does not hurt anyone.
If ESB one day can be deployed to other servers or the classpath
container start being used by other parts of our code that is not 100%
dependent on AS by nature then
separating those base classes out makes a lot of sense.
/max
_______________________________________________
jbosstools-dev mailing list
jbosstools-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbosstools-dev