yes. the generalization is what i'm more afraid of here...
igor.vaynberg wrote:
>
> i guess another thing to consider is that in both of these cases there are
> no sideeffects of installing these things. if you dont use the annots
> everything is as it was before. so its not like you drop this file in and
> all of a sudden things get weird.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 2/18/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> i disagree. having things explicit is very nice when there is a need for
>> you to know, but what if there isnt?
>>
>> take wicket-spring module. its only service is to make fields annotated
>> with @SpringBean injectable. why should the user care that this is done
>> with
>> the componentinstantiationlistener, or what a
>> componentinstantiationlistener
>> is.
>>
>> there is also no need to make the user dig in though the docs and figure
>> out they they need to have
>> addComponentInstantionListener(new SpringComponentInjector(this));
>>
>> to them its total garbage they just have to paste in. no one cares what
>> it
>> is, they only care @SpringBean fields are injected.
>>
>> so perhaps i should chage "zero-configuration" to "zero-installation".
>>
>> same for security
>>
>> if i provide a module that provides a couple of annots like @Admin @User,
>> etc and a security strategy for them - why make user go through all the
>> gritty details of installing it. what if they have their own and want to
>> mix
>> it with the one in the module? they have to do all the wrapping
>> themselves -
>> it gets messy and the end result is exactly the same as when the module
>> wouldve installed its own by itself. if we move to veto semantics for
>> return
>> values of strategies there is no difference how it is mixed in as long as
>> it
>> is.
>>
>> i dont know. if there is only one way to install something, why not have
>> it done automatically?
>>
>> like i said, just thinking out loud
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/18/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I like the idea of snap-in modules of some sort, but I don't completely
>> > understand what you're talking about here and I'm not sure I agree with
>> > what
>> > all of what I do get.
>> >
>> > I'm unsure about auto-installing modules using the classpath. With the
>> > classpath loading, you wind up with a lot of magic going on that you
>> > don't
>> > explicitly specify. I find that kind of "zero config" to be slippery,
>> > sometimes surprising and generally harder to manage than simply
>> > requiring a
>> > single line of code in your application constructor that makes it clear
>> > to
>> > everyone exactly what is supposed to happen (and when). It is very
>> > straightforward and self-documenting to explicitly state the dependency
>> > for
>> > each module you want to use in your app constructor. It's extremely
>> > hard to
>> > mistake the intention of something like "add(new
>> > WhateverModule())". You
>> > don't have to know anything about how Wicket modules might work to
>> > figure it
>> > out.
>> >
>> > I also think that the current approach of having /a/ security strategy
>> > is
>> > quite elegant and straightforward. The mechanism is extensible by
>> > explicit
>> > chaining and I think probably better than a fancy one that has
>> locators,
>> >
>> > searching or cascading because you end up with magic again. Saying
>> > "add(new
>> > WebApplicationAuthenticator())" (instead of extending
>> > AuthenticatedWebApplication) lets you to add web application
>> > authentication
>> > functionality without having to educate anyone about how it happens.
>> >
>> > I think what we should be shooting for is an easy way to use modules in
>> > Wicket that add behavior explicitly in your application constructor. I
>> > think this ought to be some kind of simple and explicit pattern of
>> > composition.
>> >
>> > I like the start of what you're thinking here, but let's be careful not
>> > to
>> > invent for invention's sake. Wicket would best remain a highly
>> > predictable
>> > and simple framework.
>> >
>> >
>> > igor.vaynberg wrote:
>> > >
>> > > just thinking out loud...
>> > >
>> > > for a long time we have had problems with addons that have their own
>> > > application subclass because if you wanted to use more then one addon
>> > you
>> > > had to bastardize the code of one and add it to the application
>> > subclass
>> > > of
>> > > the other. recently i refactored wicket-spring to not have its own
>> > > application subclass, but the user still had to install the component
>> > > injector - and needs to know how to do that.
>> > >
>> > > i thought it would be great to have modules that users can install
>> > that
>> > > would take place of the module-specific application subclass. and
>> then
>> > i
>> > > thought about it some more and realized we already have something
>> like
>> > > that.
>> > >
>> > > interface wicketmodule extends iinitializer, idestroyer {}
>> > >
>> > > and there you have it, a beginnings of a wicket module. i just
>> > refactored
>> > > wicket-spring to work like this, it uses an initializer to register
>> > the
>> > > springcomponnetinjector so now for user there is zero-configuration.
>> > drop
>> > > the jar onto the classpath and its ready to go. why didnt i do this a
>> > long
>> > > time ago? :|
>> > >
>> > > now for security stuff we can also do some really cool things. it
>> gets
>> > a
>> > > bit
>> > > controversial here but bare with me. what if we let the security
>> > strategy
>> > > cascade from session->application->modules and instead of returning
>> > true
>> > > or
>> > > false it returns pass or veto? the controversial bit is removing
>> > security
>> > > strategy from a setting and letting session, application,
>> wicketmodule
>> > be
>> > > able to implement it directly - or implement a locator interface.
>> this
>> > way
>> > > installing wicket-auth is pretty simple, drop the jar in and create
>> > your
>> > > own
>> > > roles. the module takes care of installing the right security
>> > strategy,
>> > > etc.
>> > >
>> > > could be cool, the module interface can be extended to handle other
>> > > usefull
>> > > callbacks, etc.
>> > >
>> > > -igor
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/wicket-modules-tf3250868.html#a9037838
>> >
>> > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/wicket-modules-tf3250868.html#a9045680
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
