It sounds like a good idea. I like solutions that bring order and balance
to the Force ;-)
EdB
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
wrote:
> Ok ... so now I know where my unfinished mail went ;-)
>
> So in order to get a tool implementation, you would do something like this:
>
> public FlexTool getFlexTool(String desiredGroupName, String
> desiredToolName) {
> ServiceLoader<FlexToolGroup> flexToolGroups =
> ServiceLoader.load(FlexToolGroup.class);
> for(FlexToolGroup toolGroup : flexToolGroups) {
> if(toolGroup.getName().equals(desiredGroupName) {
> return toolGroup.getFlexTool(desiredToolname);
> }
> }
> return null;
> }
>
> and we wouldn't need to do any reflection, dynamic class-loading and stuff
> like that ... and we could sort of "listFlexToolGroups" to find out which
> tool groups are available and "getFlexToolNames" to see which tools the
> selected group supports. So in case of Falcon I could implement Flexmojos
> in a way that it is able to detect that the Falcon tool group has no ASDoc
> and will skip that step without without any dangerous impact on the build
> and I could produce useful error messages such as "No tool group selected.
> Available tool groups 'DEFAULT', 'FALCON'" or "selected tool group 'FALCON'
> does not exist. Available tool groups 'DEFAULT'".
>
> What do you think?
>
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. November 2014 09:51
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: flex-tool-api
>
> Hi,
>
>
> has anyone had a look/any comment on my proposed tool api project that
> would allow managing of the various implementations of compilers in the FDK?
>
>
> I have taken my thoughts a little further. While implementing the PMD
> modularization I encountered the
>
> Java SerivceLoder mechanism and I would like to use this in Flexmojos to
> select the modules the user wants to use.
> http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/ServiceLoader.html
>
>
> I currently had planned a FlexTool interface with a "toolName" and
> "toolGroup" property and an "ecexute" method. while thinking even further,
> I doubt that someone would use the default compiler for SWCs, Falcon for
> SWFs and ASDoc by yet another. So what do you think about having a
> "compiler group" and this either has a concrete "getCOMPC", "getMXML",
> "getASDoc", ... or more consists of a Map of tools "getTool('ASDOC')" Where
> the key to the map could be an Enum or a String.
>
>
> Eventually the Map version with a String key would be the most generic
> version and we would probably not have to extend that interface in the near
> future. Especially when thinking of the JavaScript future.
>
>
> So I would change my proposal to having two interfaces:
>
>
> FlexTool
>
> - public String getName()
>
> - public int execute(String[] args)
>
>
> FlexToolGroup
>
> - public String getName();
>
> - public FlexTool getTool(String name)
>
>
> If we added one FlexToolGoup to each compiler implementation project
> (Default, Falcon, FlexJS, VF2JS) and in these the "getTool" method is
> implemented in a way to return the implementation matching that particular
> group, it would make tooling a lot easier:
>
> ServiceLoader<FlexToolGroup> flexToolGroups =
> ServiceLoader.load(FlexToolGroup.class);
>
>
--
Ix Multimedia Software
Jan Luykenstraat 27
3521 VB Utrecht
T. 06-51952295
I. www.ixsoftware.nl
