Hi Romain,
I think the missing thing for automation projects is probably more
around "documentation" for the setters/getters.
So, why not:
1. we don't change the usage and AutoValue itself
2. we can imagine to add a new set of annotations in IO Common with a
specific annotation processor that create another POJO class, not
actually used in the IO code, but "describing" the configuration for
automation projects. This POJO will be public, no final.
WDYT ?
Regards
JB
On 12/01/2018 19:26, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi guys
I'd like to discuss the IO configuration.
My goal is to be able to instrospect (or equivalent) the IO to
instantiate them programmatically in a generic manner from a generic
config - this is not yet linked to the system property topic but can
benefit beam on this other topic too.
Auto value loosing the final fields ordering is impossible to use until
you parse sources.
In other words: auto value is nice for programmatic usage but is
blocking for any automotion on top of it - even using unsafe is not an
option ATM :(.
Can we try to get something to solve that need please?
Here are the solutions I see (pick just one ;)):
1. migrate IO to IOOptions (based on pipeline options kind of design).
This is a breaking change - but I'm sure we can mitigate it in term of
user compatibility - but it unifies the beam config and enables to not
have IO specific configurations which can vary between the IO if not
developped by the same guy.
2. Add an extension to @AutoValue to also generate the field names order
in the create() (@Fields({"address","username","password"}). Cheap but
the way to instantiate an IO from a config is still a pain (think
Factory.createIO(clazz, properties))
3. Also generate a plain pojo from the abstract @AutoValue class - this
requires to modify the source class to make it working but is feasible
with a processor
4. drop autovalue and use plain pojo - writing it cause it is a
technical option but it leads to break as much as 1 without getting all
the benefit to have an agnostic config and the tooling we can build on
top of it
5. probably others
Wdyt?
Personally I really like 1 cause it starts to create a clean programming
model we can then build other features on.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github
<https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau>
