APISeam
From APIDesign
m (CodeInjection moved to APISeam: Code injection term is already used for hacking - like sending misformated strings to execute special SQL queries. Let's try to use term APISeam.) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions not shown.) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Do you maintain some [[API]]? Have you ever received a patch from an external contributor which you considered inappropriate? I did, many times. Also I was many times in a position when I wanted to twist some other [[API]] in ways that were not really comfortable for the original [[API]] maintainer. | Do you maintain some [[API]]? Have you ever received a patch from an external contributor which you considered inappropriate? I did, many times. Also I was many times in a position when I wanted to twist some other [[API]] in ways that were not really comfortable for the original [[API]] maintainer. | ||
| - | What can be result of such conflict of interests? Rejection of the patch? | + | What can be result of such conflict of interests? Rejection of the patch? Possibly, but that probably upsets the submitter and a good [[API]] maintainer does not want to upset those who are willing to contribute patches. Accepting a silly patch? Well, that creates a maintenance nightmare. No [[API]] maintainer is wishing to spend time bugfixing, expanding and baby sitting an unwanted code. Looks like lose/lose situation! Is there a better solution? |
== Code Injection == | == Code Injection == | ||
| - | The solution is to create a ''code slot''. Instead of accepting | + | The solution is to create a ''code slot''. Instead of accepting an unwanted patch, the [[API]] can be extended to execute arbitrary code at given ''patch set'' point. Imagine simple [[API]] for ''counting down'' to zero: |
<source lang="java" snippet="codeinjection.CountDown"/> | <source lang="java" snippet="codeinjection.CountDown"/> | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
<source lang="java" snippet="codeinjection.v2"/> | <source lang="java" snippet="codeinjection.v2"/> | ||
| - | This keeps the [[API]] clean of any hacks of subtleties of the foreign code. The [[API]] just defines a ''code slot'' by use of '''ServiceLoader.load''', which is standard [[JDK]] 1.6 interface for doing [[Component Injection]]. Either it is present (someone included additional [[JAR]] on classpath with registration of implementation of the interface), and in such way the decrement is completely handled by new code, or it is missing and then the behaviour remains the same as in version 1.0. If no implementation of the ''slot'' is around, things remain the same as in the first test case. Once some implementation of extender is registered, behaviour changes: | + | This keeps the [[API]] clean of any hacks of subtleties of the foreign code. The [[API]] just defines a ''code slot'' by use of '''ServiceLoader.load''', which is standard [[JDK]] 1.6 interface for doing [[Component Injection]]. Either it is present (someone included additional [[JAR]] on classpath with registration of implementation of the interface), and in such way the decrement is completely handled by new code, or it is missing and then the behaviour remains the same as in version 1.0. If no implementation of the ''slot'' is around, things remain the same as in the first test case. Once some implementation of extender (like the '''DecrementByTwo''' class) is registered, behaviour changes: |
<source lang="java" snippet="codeinjection.twice"/> | <source lang="java" snippet="codeinjection.twice"/> | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
''Code slots'' provide a nice balance between the need to extend an [[API]] with additional functionality and the fear of maintaining such code. Every [[API]] can be extended to provide ''code slots'' and I see them as a perfect way of providing patches for ''unwanted'' behaviour. | ''Code slots'' provide a nice balance between the need to extend an [[API]] with additional functionality and the fear of maintaining such code. Every [[API]] can be extended to provide ''code slots'' and I see them as a perfect way of providing patches for ''unwanted'' behaviour. | ||
| - | For example I want to change [[Felix]] to | + | For example I want to change [[Felix]] to better cooperate with [[NetBeans]] runtime container. Of course I do not want to pollute the original [[Felix]] code with anything [[NetBeans]] specific, but maybe all I need is just a single ''code slot'' to hook in. |
Of course, the [[API]] maintainer needs to be ready to support such ''slot'' and accept any, even surprising behaviour inside it, so the solution is not completely for free. It is still desirable to evaluate the patch with techniques discussed in [[Teamwork|chapter 16]]. Yet, use of ''code slots'' seems to provide the best balance by turning an unacceptable patch into acceptable slot. | Of course, the [[API]] maintainer needs to be ready to support such ''slot'' and accept any, even surprising behaviour inside it, so the solution is not completely for free. It is still desirable to evaluate the patch with techniques discussed in [[Teamwork|chapter 16]]. Yet, use of ''code slots'' seems to provide the best balance by turning an unacceptable patch into acceptable slot. | ||
Current revision
Do you maintain some API? Have you ever received a patch from an external contributor which you considered inappropriate? I did, many times. Also I was many times in a position when I wanted to twist some other API in ways that were not really comfortable for the original API maintainer.
What can be result of such conflict of interests? Rejection of the patch? Possibly, but that probably upsets the submitter and a good API maintainer does not want to upset those who are willing to contribute patches. Accepting a silly patch? Well, that creates a maintenance nightmare. No API maintainer is wishing to spend time bugfixing, expanding and baby sitting an unwanted code. Looks like lose/lose situation! Is there a better solution?
Code Injection
The solution is to create a code slot. Instead of accepting an unwanted patch, the API can be extended to execute arbitrary code at given patch set point. Imagine simple API for counting down to zero:
does not exists: codeinjection.CountDown
and its simple implementation:
does not exists: codeinjection.v1
It is obvious to author of the API and almost everyone else that down() means decrement by one. Just like in this test:
does not exists: codeinjection.fourtimes
But imagine that there is someone who would like to decrement by two. Such person may even provide a patch, but the patch needs to complicate things. As such the maintainer may not want to accept it. Still, if the maintainer agrees that under some circumstances, the submitter shall have right to shot himself into his own foot, the API can be opened up by providing code slot interface:
does not exists: codeinjection.slot
and looking up its implementation at the right place:
does not exists: codeinjection.v2
This keeps the API clean of any hacks of subtleties of the foreign code. The API just defines a code slot by use of ServiceLoader.load, which is standard JDK 1.6 interface for doing Component Injection. Either it is present (someone included additional JAR on classpath with registration of implementation of the interface), and in such way the decrement is completely handled by new code, or it is missing and then the behaviour remains the same as in version 1.0. If no implementation of the slot is around, things remain the same as in the first test case. Once some implementation of extender (like the DecrementByTwo class) is registered, behaviour changes:
does not exists: codeinjection.twice
Code slots provide a nice balance between the need to extend an API with additional functionality and the fear of maintaining such code. Every API can be extended to provide code slots and I see them as a perfect way of providing patches for unwanted behaviour.
For example I want to change Felix to better cooperate with NetBeans runtime container. Of course I do not want to pollute the original Felix code with anything NetBeans specific, but maybe all I need is just a single code slot to hook in.
Of course, the API maintainer needs to be ready to support such slot and accept any, even surprising behaviour inside it, so the solution is not completely for free. It is still desirable to evaluate the patch with techniques discussed in chapter 16. Yet, use of code slots seems to provide the best balance by turning an unacceptable patch into acceptable slot.
<comments/>
Follow
