On Jan 31, 2010, at 2:00 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> --- On Sat, 1/30/10, David E Jones <d...@me.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>>> The moral of the story is: developers shouldn't be
>> allowed to write to the service context Map. If a service
>> needs a Map for local storage, then it should create one.
>>
>> That's kind of interesting.
>>
>> What got me thinking is that the normal practice for Java
>> service is to create a local variable for pretty much
>> everything in the context anyway (ie like: String partyId =
>> (String) context.get("partyId");), and there are things like
>> that all over the place.
>>
>> As far as not being to write to the context... why not?
>> Sometimes it's handy to use the current context as the basis
>> for calling another service. There are certainly other ways
>> to go about that... but...
>
> Maybe it would help to step back a little and compare OFBiz back in the day
> when it was just David and Andrew, and what it is today. Back then using a
> Map for passing parameters was a cool idea. I don't know what the motivation
> was to use a Map to pass parameters when you designed the service engine, but
> at the time I'm sure the two of you knew that you weren't supposed to write
> to it.
>
> Today, things are different. We have a lot of contributors. Many of those
> contributors might not know everything they need to know about the framework.
> So, the framework needs to protect itself from inexperienced or lazy
> developers. That was the moral of the story.
Have you ever considered running for public office?
> I made the changes Adam suggested in this thread because I agree with the
> concept he was promoting: Make the framework code impose rules that
> developers must follow. As the OFBiz code base and community grows, I'm sure
> we will need to do more of the same.
I guess one way or another we'll see what happens...
-David
