That is why I have replace "Module" with the injection of the factories, which I think is the appropriate pattern.
Otherwise, we should then say, why doesn't Module implement the TypeLookup and EntityStore methods and "delegate all the nifty details to the corresponding services/factories". I prefer consistency. Cheers Niclas On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Paul Merlin <paulmer...@apache.org> wrote: > Niclas Hedhman a écrit : > > Ok, > > should we then stop having Module extends XyzFactory, and they are > obtained > > likewise? Just in case we in future want some other mechanism for the > > XyzFactory types, and not depend on the entire Module. > > > > I think so, as it then becomes more symmetrical and it is not relevant > that > > ModuleInstance implements ValueBuilderFactory at the moment. > > This would mean that we won't anymore be able to: > > module.newTransient(..) > > and that we would have to: > > module.transientBuilderFactory().newTransient(..) > > These shortcuts are pretty convenient IMO. > > But, yes, ModuleInstance should delegate all the nifty details to the > corresponding services/factories. Right now it contains way too much > implementation details of each of these factories. > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
