RE: Towards a Flux POJO programming model

david — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:00:23 GMT

In working on the POJO model against the development version of Flux, I see that it's going to be highly confusing to have many different classes that have the same name, only in separate packages. For example, the existing Engine interface needs to be a class in the POJO model, but if we want to maintain the existing APIs, we will also need the old FlowChart interface. What to do?

One obvious thing to do is to move off the existing "flux" package to a new package called "oldflux". Existing code that uses the "flux" package would need to be updated to use the "oldflux" package. That would free up the "flux" package to be populated with classes instead of interfaces.

But that's confusing.

The simplest thing would really just be to change all the existing interfaces in the "flux" package to POJO classes and leave it at that. That change implies that existing Flux users would need to update their code to say "new Engine()" instead of "Factory.makeInstance().makeEngine()".

That's the direction that things are heading in now.

david @ flux

RE: Towards a Flux POJO programming model