>I could be wrong but I think the plan I wrote about was a step-by-step >instruction to get rid of singletons using a intermediate service locator that >can be dropped in the end.
>To me the first step is to get from "unit tests are impossible" (the current >state of the framework) to "they are do-able". Then unit tests could actually >be written. With unit tests available it would be safer to ease to >a system >without a global state. As you might expect from my posts, I am planning on taking a different approach in my whiteboard. I am going to provide a version of the framework and compiler with a swappable, minimalistic injection mechanism and perhaps some basic AOPish concepts like compile time mixins. My personal thought is that: if the injection mechanism exists, and if people like the way I approached it, then one by one we can fix individual classes to favor this pattern, slowly increasingly the flexibility and testability of the framework. The biggest problem in this approach is actually things like StyleManagement, which I just can't see a way to tackle without major changes, but that is a discussion for another day. I have no expectation that my thoughts will be taken wholesale, but I think the best way to solve the debate is to look at the code side by side (even a subset of the code). See the complexity and performance differences and then weigh the options. Mike Notice: This transmission is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this transmission by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail or telephone and delete the original transmission. Thank you.
