ConfigurationObject

From APIDesign

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 48: Line 48:
}) === "Hello world!" || error();
}) === "Hello world!" || error();
</source>
</source>
-
Adding named parameters is more easily evolvable. Moreover it is certainly easier to use ten named arguments than a function with ten parameters. No surprise the [[ConfigurationObject]] becomes more and more popular in many [[JavaScript]] libraries. As the core of [[DukeScript]] ecosystem is built around wrapping [[JavaScript]] libraries with type-safe [[Java]] [[API]]s it becomes more and more important to find proper realization of such [[API]] in [[Java]]. Here are few options.
+
Adding named parameters is more easily evolvable. Moreover it is certainly easier to use ten named arguments than a function with ten parameters. No surprise the [[ConfigurationObject]] becomes more and more popular in many [[JavaScript]] libraries.
 +
 
 +
Now let's take a [[Java]] view. [[DukeScript]] (a way to use [[HTML]] from [[Java]]) is all about [[Java]] and [[JavaScript]] co-operation.
 +
To prevent reinventing the wheel the core of [[DukeScript]] ecosystem is built around wrapping [[JavaScript]] libraries with type-safe [[Java]] [[API]]s. As [[ConfigurationObject]] is becoming more frequent, it is more and more important to find proper realization of such [[API]] in [[Java]]. Let's discuss the options.
== [[JavaBean]]s like Style ==
== [[JavaBean]]s like Style ==

Revision as of 10:50, 22 February 2015

ConfigurationObject pattern is often used by JavaScript libraries to deal with evolution in a manageable way. While TheAPIBook advocates getting ready for the fact that first version of any API is never perfect, people keep repeating the same design mistake again and again: optimistically ignore the need for evolution! Usual history of an API starts with introducing function with one argument:

function upper(text) {
  return text.toUpperCase();
}
upper("Hello World!") === "HELLO WORLD!" || error();

then one finds an additional argument is needed:

function upper(text, firstLetterOnly) {
  if (firstLetterOnly) {
    return text.substring(0, 1).toUpperCase() + text.substring(1);
  }
  return text.toUpperCase();
}
upper("hello world!") === "HELLO WORLD!" || error();
upper("hello world!", true) === "Hello world!" || error();

and later another one, and another and so on, until one realizes the whole API is total mess and it is time to switch to ConfigurationObject design pattern:

function upper(data, firstLetterOnly) {
  if (typeof data === "string") {
      data = {
          "text" : data,
          "firstLetterOnly" : firstLetterOnly
      };
  }
  if (data.firstLetterOnly) {
    return data.text.substring(0, 1).toUpperCase() + data.text.substring(1);
  }
  return data.text.toUpperCase();
}
upper({ 
  "text" : "hello world!"
}) === "HELLO WORLD!" || error();
upper({ 
  "text" : "hello world!",
  "firstLetterOnly" : false
}) === "HELLO WORLD!" || error();
upper({ 
  "text" : "hello world!",
  "firstLetterOnly" : true
}) === "Hello world!" || error();

Adding named parameters is more easily evolvable. Moreover it is certainly easier to use ten named arguments than a function with ten parameters. No surprise the ConfigurationObject becomes more and more popular in many JavaScript libraries.

Now let's take a Java view. DukeScript (a way to use HTML from Java) is all about Java and JavaScript co-operation. To prevent reinventing the wheel the core of DukeScript ecosystem is built around wrapping JavaScript libraries with type-safe Java APIs. As ConfigurationObject is becoming more frequent, it is more and more important to find proper realization of such API in Java. Let's discuss the options.

JavaBeans like Style

Personal tools
buy