Commit graph

16 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
29ee5131f4 Switch first Layer-Separation-Interface to expose the service implementation via lib::Depend
Actually this is on the implementation side only.
Since Layer-Separation-Interfaces route each call through a binding layer,
we get two Service-"Instances" to manage
- on the client side we have to route into the Lumiera Interface system
- on the implementation side the C-Language calls from the Interface system
  need to get to the actual service implementation. The latter is now
  managed and exposed via DependInject::ServiceInstance
2018-04-02 04:19:17 +02:00
80207ea224 DI: (WIP) switch to totally rewritten new implementation of lib::Depend (#1086)
- state-of-the-art implementation of access with Double Checked Locking + Atomics
- improved design for configuration of dependencies. Now at the provider, not the consumer
- support for exposing services with a lifecycle through the lib::Depend<SRV> front-end
2018-03-31 01:06:06 +02:00
562c14e15d DI: safer to make DependencyFactor noncopyable
...and to use a dedicated function for transferring the definition
2018-03-30 07:57:08 +02:00
cc46c5b04b DI: solve problem with leftover deleter in testmock. Unit test PASS 2018-03-30 07:42:53 +02:00
b3d18c1a74 DI: rework dependency-injection configuration in terms of the new DependencyFactory
why is this so damn hard to get right?
2018-03-30 05:56:53 +02:00
c3e149028f DI: draft towards unified use of the singleton holder
ideally we want
 - just a plain unique_ptr
 - but with custom deleter delegating to lib::Depend
 - Depend can be made fried to support private ctor/dtor
 - reset the instance-ptr on deletion
 - always kill any instance
2018-03-28 03:27:05 +02:00
d6786870f3 DI: port the old Singleton unit tests
all these tests are ported by drop-in replacement
and should work afterwards exactly as before (and they do indeed)

A minor twist was spotted though (nice to have more unit tests indeed!):
Sometimes we want to pass a custom constructor *not* as modern-style lambda,
but rather as direct function reference, function pointer or even member
function pointer. However, we can not store those types into the closure
for later lazy invocation. This is basically the same twist I run into
yesterday, when modernising the thread-wrapper. And the solution is
similar. Our traits class _Fun<FUN> has a new typedef Functor
with a suitable functor type to be instantiated and copied. In case of
the Lambda this is the (anonymous) lamda class itself, but in case of
a function reference or pointer it is a std::function.
2018-03-26 07:54:16 +02:00
f4195c102a DI: document relation to lifecylce and lifecycle events in general 2018-03-26 02:28:49 +02:00
942bad5d0a DI: document the reworked Singleton / Dependency-Factory
- polish the text in the TiddlyWiki
 - integrate some new pages in the published documentation
   Still mostly placeholder text with some indications
 - fill in the relevant sections in the overview document
 - adjust, expand and update the Doxygen comments

TODO: could convert the TiddlyWiki page to Asciidoc and
      publish it mostly as-is. Especially the nice benchmarks
      from yesterday :-D
2018-03-25 09:33:57 +02:00
ff256d9e57 DI: benchmark naive lock protected access
...which gives us the dramatic numbers we'd expect.
Especially the multithreaded variant contends drastically
2018-03-24 11:02:43 +01:00
685a9b84ee Library: replace boost::noncopyable by our own library solution
Benefits
 - get rid of yet another pervasive Boost dependency
 - define additional more fine grained policies (move only, clonable)
2018-03-24 05:35:13 +01:00
364dcd5291 DI: verify and improve static sanity checks
esp. for subclass instance creation from within a lambda
2018-03-22 21:43:19 +01:00
d9af3abb0f DI: implement creating singleton from arbitrary (user provided) closure/functor/lambda
this is quite an ugly feature, but I couldn't come up with
any convincing argument *not* to implement it (and its low hanging fruit)
2018-03-22 06:53:56 +01:00
e74576f6b0 DI: pass-through arbitrary arguments for initialisation of a ServiceInstance
...this part is a no-brainer.
However, it is not clear yet if we can (and want to) do something similar for deferred (lazy) instance creation
2018-03-22 04:19:33 +01:00
5c39498929 DI: clean-up and document the TDD test
...written as byproduct from the reimplementation draft.

NOTE there is a quite similar test from 2013, DependencyFactory_test
For now I prefer to retain both, since the old one should just continue
to work with minor API adjustments (and thus prove this rewrite is a
drop-in replacement).

On the long run those two tests could be merged eventually...
2018-03-19 05:34:27 +01:00
83476b3ef1 DI: Reworked dependency-factory implementation draft complete -- move into library headers
This is a complete makeover of our lib::Depend and lib::DependencyFactory templates.
While retaining the basic idea, the configuration has been completely rewritten
to favour configuration at the point where a service is provided rather,
than at the point where a dependency is used.

Note: we use differently named headers, so the entire Lumiera
code base still uses the old implementation. Next step will be
to switch the tests (which should be drop-in)
2018-03-19 03:46:49 +01:00