|
|
Sunday, November 07, 2004
|
|
| |
Excellent Article on Inversion of Control Containers
Mike Spille has a great article on Inversion of Control at http://www.pyrasun.com/mike/mt/archives/2004/11/06/15.46.14/index.html .
I really enjoy his take no shit with humor writing style. Plus it is a
really good introduction to IoC and the different IoC packages.
Personally i have never understood IoC. IoC reminds of Kiss, the Prince song that says:
U got to not talk dirty, baby
If u wanna impress me
U can't be 2 flirty, mama
I know how 2 undress me (Yeah)
Just create your objects and wire them up. Adding the extra levels of
indirection and configuration files has made no sense to me. I like to
see the code rather than hiding it behind another framework. I really
don't need an XML description language to encode the dependencies that
i can easily actually code.
Nor do i agree with him on the evil of singletons. Singletons are
a service level access mechanism that makes it clear from the
package documentation what is going on. If a singleton won't do then
transform the singleton into a factory that takes contruction criteria
and you are done. Couldn't be simpler or clearer in the code.
For example, in the dom code, when i need a document builder, all i need to do is:
DocumentBuilderFactory factory = DocumentBuilderFactory.newInstance();
That is simple and obvious. I don't care which builder was installed, i
just use it. Why do i need more infrastructure than this?
It took me a while that IoC was for service level objects, not domain
objects. This to me makes IoC even more useless. Somehow i can manage
the complexity of domain object wiring but i need help with service
level objects? Don't think so.
12:15:28 PM 
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2006
todd hoff.
Last update:
7/11/2006; 1:11:49 PM.
|
|
| November 2004 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
| 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
| 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
| 28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
| Oct Dec |
|
