From: Tomas Doran Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 19:40:02 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Smash the TODO X-Git-Url: http://git.shadowcat.co.uk/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=catagits%2FCatalyst-Runtime.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=a43734f6dc70998f00f2b4fc0d2dbe6fb6a0f69d Smash the TODO --- diff --git a/TODO b/TODO index 27dcf79..9295085 100644 --- a/TODO +++ b/TODO @@ -57,9 +57,29 @@ http://github.com/willert/catalyst-plugin-log4perl-simple/tree ## GSOC -### Next large steps: - - - Finished documentation for ::IOC parts. +### Next large steps, planned: + +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 + + - 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 + + - 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 @@ -67,12 +87,6 @@ http://github.com/willert/catalyst-plugin-log4perl-simple/tree - Using the sugar added in the previous item - Test when Model::Foo depends_on Model::Bar - - Allowing people to change component lifecycles - - role Service::WithAcceptContext {} - role Service::WithCOMPONENT {} - class Service::CatalystComponent extends Service with (WithAcceptContext, WithCOMPONENT) {} - a) configure additional services in that container - super simple container $default_container => as { more services }; class MyApp::Container extends Catalyst::Container { @@ -90,26 +104,58 @@ http://github.com/willert/catalyst-plugin-log4perl-simple/tree # as well as adding using the catalyst-specific service class } } }; - b) make component services depend on that, and + 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 + + 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? + + 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 + + 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 + + my hopes of not needing any sugar at all, i guess - c) ask for those - services declared in a) outside of a web context - simple as well. $customised_container->fetch('service')->get # or whatever the api was + only a couple of new lifecycles to be registered with the container - ?? -19:23 < andrewalker> edenc, when explaining to me how it should be, drafted this: https://gist.github.com/1098186 -19:26 < edenc> I like the possibility of being able to provide a backwards-compatible structure which we can muck around with by configuring B::B -19:26 <@rafl> so, the request context clearly isn't a service -19:27 <@rafl> but that's ok. there's parametrised services -19:27 < edenc> yeah, that was a draft -19:27 <@rafl> the outer Foo service is pretty much what i'd expect Service::WithAcceptContext to do, except with a dependency on a context instead of a service parameter -19:32 <@rafl> actually having services for the pre-ACCEPT_CONTEXT bits is what i want to think about -### To polish off +### 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