## GSOC
-### Next large steps:
+### Next large steps, planned:
- - Moving setup_components etc into the container
+For all components that have been discovered, in whatever way, we create a service:
+ - that's a catalyst component service
+ - which is basically just a constructor injection
+ - except the constructor name is COMPONENT
+ - and we're "implicitly" passing along some constructor args
+ - Lifecycle => Singleton
- - This is so that you can just load the container and get models etc from it,
- without loading Catalyst.
+ - We make a 'components' sub container in the main container.
+ - This gets the ConstructorInjection COMPONENT services, as model_Foo.
+ - Lifecycle of these services is Singleton
+ - This simplifies the code for MyApp->components, as it need only list one sub-container
- - Finished documentation for ::IOC parts.
+ - We create a second service (depending on the first one) for ACCEPT_CONTEXT
+ - This has a custom service which calls ACCEPT_CONTEXT when the instance is fetched
+ - Not Singleton lifecycle
+
+ Note - ACCEPT_CONTEXT can be called on app values - if you have a Model::Foo, with an ACCEPT_CONTEXT
+ and you call MyApp->model('Foo') then ACCEPT_CONTEXT gets invoked with a $c of 'MyApp' (this is not\
+ the normal case, but we need to preserve for compat)
+
+### Next steps - less planned:
+
+ - Creating service()-like sugar for component
- Test cases for extending the container in an application.
+ - Using the sugar added in the previous item
+ - Test when Model::Foo depends_on Model::Bar
+
+ a) configure additional services in that container
+ - super simple container $default_container => as { more services };
+ class MyApp::Container extends Catalyst::Container {
+ use Bread::Board; # Or our own sugar?
+ method BUILD { container $self => as {
+ service model => ...; # some constructor injection to MyApp::Model or something
+ container Model => as {
+ component Foo => (dependencies => ['/model']); # As per default!
+ component Bar => (dependencies => ['/model/Foo']); # Magic!
+ };
+ # Note - implementation of BB may need to be changed to support making sure existing
+ # services actually get overridden. not sure how the default container behaves when doing that
+ # above code would build the constructor injection as it currently does,
+ # defaulting to the class name in the right namespace as declared by the surrounding container
+ # as well as adding using the catalyst-specific service class
+ } }
+ };
+
+ let's consider the usage patterns we actually want to enable by doing the whole B::B thing
+ what happens if i make the "per-app" service for a component life only for the duration of the request?
+ or be instanciated every time i look up the component?
+ (or scoping it per session, or having a block injection, or something)
+
+ say you override the app service to be per-request
+ now the wrapper for the per-request variant doesn't make sense anymore. does it?
+ because you're only overriding one half of what has been generated automatically
- - Allowing people to change component lifecycles
+ ah, so you have basically ended up with getting a request scoped thing to be used to construct a request scoped thing, which is pointless? Would/could you not just override the
+ service which is actually getting looked up instead, and make it not depend on the auto-generated per-app scope service, which will then just never be built?
- - This is done by being able to use an alternate Service class..
+ yes, you could. but then you'd have to be aware of the distinction
+ which is what i hoped to be a barely visible backcompat thing
+ but which i'm afraid it won't be if we go for two actual separate services
- I.E. We currently force everything to do Catalyst/IOC/Service/WithAcceptContext.pm, but
- things without an ACCEPT_CONTEXT could just not bother, and it would be nice to have
- one that cached the object in request scope (i.e. Catalyst::Component::InstancePerContext)
- etc.
+ what stops the sugar we give from not just making you specify the lifecycle, and giving you the obvious name / wiring?
+ i.e. everything looks like 'Foo', so you don't have to know COMPONENT/Foo exists
- However we need to work out an interface for people to setup / configure this.
+ my hopes of not needing any sugar at all, i guess
-### To polish off
+ only a couple of new lifecycles to be registered with the container - ??
+
+
+### To polish off / t0m review
- - Document current methods
- + $class->container->get_sub_container('model')->make_single_default;
-+ $class->container->get_sub_container('view')->make_single_default;
+ + $class->container->get_sub_container('view')->make_single_default;
+
+ get_components_names_types
+
+ locate_components
+
+ +# FIXME - t0m, how do you feel about this name?
+ +# also, do you think I should draw it here, or just return the data structure?
+ +sub get_components_names_types {
+
+ + MyApp->config->{ 'Plugin::ConfigLoader' }->{ substitutions } = {
+
+ +# FIXME - just till I understand how it's supposed to be done
+ +# Made this so that COMPONENT is executed once,
+ +# and ACCEPT_CONTEXT every call.
+ +has instance => (
+ + is => 'rw',
+
+ # This is ok??
+ +my $applevel_config = TestAppContainer->container->resolve(service => 'config')->{applevel_config};
+ +__PACKAGE__->config(applevel_config => 'foo');
+
+
+ accept_context_args - where does this come from?
+
+### Known issues
+
+ - Broken $instance->expand_modules() in setup_components and figure
+ out later how to bring it back
+
+ - expand_component_module
+
projects / catagits/Catalyst-Runtime.git / blobdiff