agoncal gastaldi Do you have a moment ?
gastaldi agoncal, sure, what's up?
agoncal gastaldi I'm getting more confident with Forge and I can create more and more commands....
agoncal but actually, it's xxxNewxxxCommands
agoncal In Forge I see commands to create new classes (artifacts) : CDINewBean, JPANewEntity....
agoncal And commands to add code to existing classes : JPAAddField, CDIAddInjectionPoint
agoncal I find xxxAddCommands more difficult to write than xxxNewCommands
agoncal For example :
agoncal ServletNewServletCommand extends from AbstractServletNewCommand which extends from AbstractJavaSourceCommand
agoncal AbstractJavaSourceCommand gives me targetPackage, named and overwrite
agoncal I would like to have the same kind of hierarchy to easy my xxxAddCommands development
agoncal Something like :
agoncal ServletAddContextCommand extends from AbstractServletAddCommand which extends from AbstractAddCommand
agoncal And AbstractAddCommand would give me targetClass, named and overwrite
agoncal gastaldi WDYT ?
gastaldi do all xxxAddCommands have targetClass, named and overwrite?
agoncal gastaldi Yes. You usually want to add something that is named (attribute, method...) into a class (target class) and if it's already there you want to override it
gastaldi I don't see it as a rule for the Add commands
gastaldi for example, AddDependenciesCommand does not feature that
agoncal Well, the New commands are : targetPackage, named and overwrite and I think it represents most of the cases
agoncal gastaldi are you talking about project-add-dependencies ?
agoncal I'm more focused on Java EE code (project-add-dependencies is indeed different)
gastaldi hmm, maybe we don't need to inherit, but have encapsulate these properties
agoncal yes, why not, I'm trying to get as closed to the current model as possible (so it doesn't break anything)
agoncal I would like to be as confident to write a AddCommand than a NewCommand, and at the moment it's not the case
agoncal If there was an AbstractNewCommand and an AbstractAddCommand in just the JavaEE addon, it would make development easier
agoncal (most of the Java EE commands share the same common properties and behaviour)
gastaldi ok, but what about the abstract classes per technology ?
gastaldi are they becoming xxxNewCommands?
agoncal Well, we could have AbstractNewCommand with targetPackage, named and overwrite, and AbstractCDINewCommands for the prerequisite (CDI needs CDISetup)
agoncal And same for the add :
agoncal AbstractAddCommand with targetClass, named and overwrite, and AbstractCDIAddCommands
agoncal .... humm....
agoncal Both AbstractCDINewCommands and AbstractCDIAddCommands are used for the prerequisite...
gastaldi it's awesome that you found a pattern between these command types
gastaldi but I think that at some point inheritance won't be the answer :)
agoncal gastaldi Thanks to writing the documentation ;o)
agoncal gastaldi Totally agree !
gastaldi what documentation?
agoncal I feel a bit stuck with inheritance sometimes
agoncal Because Add and New both have a named
gastaldi agoncal, yes, perhaps we need to start looking at encapsulation instead
agoncal Add has a targetClass and New a targetPackage
gastaldi that is a more flexible approach
agoncal Yes !
agoncal But that might break some current APIs
agoncal (don't know)
gastaldi we could have a class with these common attributes and pass them to the UIBuildder
agoncal As a developper, I really just want to focus on writing the "business logic" of a command and less boiler plate code
gastaldi that's right
gastaldi totally agree
agoncal When writing a Add command I'm happy that the targetPackage is being taking care of
agoncal I also want the same for Add
agoncal (which is not the case at the moment)