Home → Suggestions →

On Vew Mediators

dbouzolin

08 Apr, 2010 03:47 PM via web

Admin Functions

• Edit
• Remove

I wonder why not to make the framework more declarative. For instance, instead of:
// In Mediator: [Inject] public var simpleView:SimpleView;

// In Context: mediatorMap.mapView(SimpleView, SimpleViewMediator);

// Just have this: [Inject(mediator='SimpleViewMediator')] public var simpleView:SimpleView;

And have the Context to map the view into mediator this way?

Same with the models. Instead:

injector.mapSingleton(SimpleModel);

Have it declared in the model itself:

    [Inject(context='MyContextClass')]
public class SimpleModel extends Actor {
    private var message: String;
    ...

Thanks,
Dmitry.

1. Support Staff 2 Posted by Shaun Smith on 08 Apr, 2010 08:12 PM

   

   Hi Dmitry,

   That's a good idea, but I see a couple of problems with that approach:

   1. We'd still need to do the mappings somewhere in order to process the Mediator/Model (to inspect its metadata), so at very best it would just shorten the mappings: mediatorMap.mapView(SomeMediator);

   2. It's far less flexible: the point of Inversion of Control is to remove those kinds of configuration decisions from inside our business classes and place them in a more sensible place. The SimpleModel, for example, would only be able to be used in the particular context that it has now been hard-coded into.

   Classes shouldn't know (or care) how they are going to be used, it is not part of their job. The decision as to whether a class should be a singleton or not should be left up to the container (or application).

   Admin Functions

   • Edit
   • Remove

2. 3 Posted by Nikos Katsikanis on 16 Aug, 2010 11:07 AM

   

   I'm with Shaun

   Admin Functions

   • Edit
   • Split
   • Remove

3. Stray closed this discussion on 13 Feb, 2011 04:27 PM.

Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.