- 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
This solution is considered correct by the experts.
Regarding the dependency-configuration part, we do not care too much about performance
and use the somewhat slower default memory ordering constraint
...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...
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)
explicit friendship seems adequate here
DependInject<SRV> becomes more or less a hidden part of Depend<SRV>,
but I prefer to bundle all those quite technical details in a separate
header, and close to the usage
This is a tricky problem an an immediate consequence of the dynamic configuration
favoured by this design. We avoid a centralised configuration and thus there
are no automatic rules to enforce consistency. It would thus be possible
to start using a dependency in singleton style, but to switch to service
style later, after the fact.
An attempt was made to prevent such a mismatch by static initialisiation;
basically the presence of any Depend<SRV>::ServiceInstance<X> would disable
any usage of Depend<SRV> in singleton style. However, such a mechanism
was found to be fragile at best. It seems more apropriate just to fail
when establishing a ServiceInstance on a dependency already actively in
use (and to lock usage after destroying the ServiceInstance).
This issue is considered rather an architectural one, which can not be
solved by any mechanism at implementation level ever
up to now we used placement into a static buffer.
While this approach is somewhat cool, I can't see much practical benefit anymore,
given that we use an elaborate framework which rules out the use of Meyers Singleton.
And given that with C++11 we're able just to use std::unique_ptr to do all work.
Moreover, the intended configurability will become much simpler by relying
on a _closure_ to produce a heap-allocated instance for all cases likewise.
The only possible problem I can see is that critical infrastructure might
rely on failsafe creation of some singleton. Up to now this scenario
remains theoretical however
Meyers Singleton is elegant and fast and considered the default solution
However...
- we want an "instance" pointer that can be rebound and reset,
and thus we are forced to use an explicit Mutex and an atomic variable.
And the situation is such that the optimiser can not detect/verify this usage
and thus generates a spurious additional lock for Meyers Singleton
- we want the option to destroy our singletons explicitly
- we need to create an abstracted closure for the ctor invocation
- we need a compiletime-branch to exclude code generation for invoking
the ctor of an abstract baseclass or interface
All those points would be somehow manageable, but would counterfeit the
simplicity of Meyers Singleton
Problems:
- using Meyers Singleton plus a ClassLock;
This is wasteful, since the compiler will emit additional synchronisation
and will likely not be able to detect the presence of our explicit locking guard
- what happens if the Meyers Singleton can not even be instantiated, e.g. for
an abstract baseclass? We are required to install an explicit subclass configuration
in that case, but the compiler is not able to see this will happen, when just
compiling the lib::Depend
Most dependencies within Lumiera are singletons and this approach remains adequate.
Singletons are not "EVIL" per se. But in some cases, there is an explicit
lifecycle, managed by some subsystem. E.g. some GUI services are only available
while the GTK event loop is running.
This special case can be integrated transparently into our lib::Depend<TY> front-end,
which defaults to creating a singleton otherwise.
we'll use a typedef to represent the default case
and provide the level within the UI-Tree as template parameter for the generic case
This avoids wrapping each definition into a builder function, which will be
the same function for 99% of the cases, and it looks rather compact and natural
for the default case, while still retaining genericity.
Another alternative would have been to inject the Tree-level at the invocation;
but doing so feels more like magic for me.
decided to add a very specific preprocessing here, to make the DSL notation more natural.
My guess is that most people won't spot the presence of this tiny bit of magic,
and it would be way more surprising to have rules like
UICoord::currentWindow().panel("viewer").create()
fail in most cases, simply because there is a wildcard on the perspective
and the panel viewer does not (yet) exist. In such a case, we now turn the
perspective into a "existential quantified" wildcard, which is treated as if
the actually existing element was written explicitly into the pattern.
...actually just more test coverage,
the feature is already implemented.
What *could* be done though is to inject that UIC_ELIDED marker
on missing perspective specs in create clauses automatically...
This looks like YAGNI, and it would be non trivial to implement.
But since the feature looks important for slick UI behaviour,
I've made a new ticket and leave it for now
with the exception of some special situations,
which require additional features from the engine,
especially binding-on-context
Not sure though if I'll implement these or say YAGNI
turns out to be somewhat tricky.
The easy shot would be to use the comma operator,
but I don't like that idea, since in logic programming, comma means "and then".
So I prefer an || operator, similar to short-circuit evaluation of boolean OR
Unfortunately, OR binds stronger than assignment, so we need to trick our way
into a smooth DSL syntax by wrapping into intermediary marker types, and accept
rvalue references only, as additional safeguard to enforce the intended inline
definition syntax typical for DSL usage.
