At the moment I'm doing it in a global, singleton ApplicationModel, but I feel that model should be thinner, and a more cohesive set of tasks and properties concerning composition could be relocated, on their own, to a new 'CompositionModel' class. Each of the vertical imported modules has their own MVVM stack and are basically self sustaining, with very little dependency on the core, or shell, application.
Works for me! I'm currently using it in an application where the client needs to be able to configure services by simply dropping plugins into the relevant folders, haven't run into any major issues so far. As far as your resource dictionaries go you may want to look at the answers to this question, paying particular attention to the build settings...you will need to call InitializeComponent() to get the resources to merge correctly.
Related
I have seen this question What is the difference between a class library and a framework
and throughout all the provided answers, the framework is always referenced as a framework. I am looking to get more technical. What exactly is a framework? A class of classes that control all functionality and provide ultimate abstraction and the ability to customize it? I am just looking to understand what exactly a framework is, as far as initializing it, not just what it accomplishes, but how exactly it is implemented. How I believe it's used/implemented is listed below.
variable = Framework() -> Reference the variable
Framework is an infrastructure, ready-made and predefined, with some particular rules of the game on the "development field", according to which, you can build your application, on top of it, by "playing with framework rules" (you can, at some extent, customize those rules).
Spring MVC is a good example of Framework. You don't control how the View Resolving, Dispatching or Template Rendering happen and achieve a goal together.
Think of this as a big machine, where you can plug in and integrate your components which are applicable to that machine.
Library, on the other hand, is just a set of classes, which provide already implemented functionality out of the box, in order to not start inventing the bicycle again and again.
Apache Commons is a good example of the Library. It has a lot of ready tools and functionality to facilitate your work with String objects.
Think of this as a set of instruments and tools, using which, you can build your own machine.
With respect to how it is implemented question. This is like asking how the Boeing A220 is built?. I'm not sure anyone can describe here how the Framework is implemented in the details. But if I understood uour point about whether the Framework is used via classes, then:
Framework might provide some classes as an abstraction, yes, but it's not about them, it's more about mechanics of the entire system. The main thing it provides is the mechanism and mechanics of how the system is designed to work.
my first question on here and I cant seem to find a similar question so sorry if this has been asked before.
This is Unity related by the way, and yes I have also posted on Unity3D answers but thought I might also be able to get help from knowledgeable individuals on stack overflow also.
Basically I am wondering if there is a way to make platform dependent objects or components. I know I can wrap code in pre-processor directive commands which I have been doing, but I tend to use a ton of plugins, many of which only function on specific platforms.
However, I have just one project for all my platform dependent versions of the game and wish to continue working this way. So I was wondering if somehow I can make say an object that has the compatible plugin components, that will only be created if a certain platform is being built for.
If not, is there a way to make an object use say a specific plugins component if say on WP8, but then another entirely different component in its place if building for Android?
If these are not possible, how do you guys get around having platform dependant plugins? Do you simply just make separate projects for each platform? (feels like that defeats the point of unity's cross platform-ness though...)
Thanks guys, any help will be greatly appreciated!
Unfortunately, you will be forced to rely on pre-processor directives if you need to run unique code per platform.
However, this can be a lot easier to manage if you apply a facade-based design pattern. Instead of peppering platform-specific details in myriad scripts throughout your project, you can create one or more facade components that expose a more generic, abstract interface. The facades can internally manage prefabs, APIs, or whatever other platform-specific details you need.
As an example, you could write a SaveManager class that manages player save data. On platforms where direct file access is available, the SaveManager instantiates and controls an internal FileSaveManager that uses direct file access. On other platforms such as web builds, the SaveManager instantiates and controls a PlayerPrefsSaveManager that uses Unity's PlayerPrefs system instead. That way, each of those classes contains only the code that it needs, and other classes can just call SaveManager without worrying about those details.
I am about to start building an app that will be used across all platforms. I will using monotouch and monodriod so I can keep things in .net
I'm a little lazy so I want to be able to reuse as much code as possible.
Lets say I want to create an application that stores contact information. e.g. Name & Phone number
My application needs to be able to retrieve data from a web service and also store data locally.
The MVVM pattern looks like the way to go but im not sure my approach below is 100% correct
Is this correct?
A project that contains my models
A project that contains my views,local storage methods and also view models which I bind my views to. In this case there would be 3 different projects based on the 3 os's
A data access layer project that is used for binding to services and local data storage
Any suggestions would be great.
Thanks for your time
Not specifically answering your question, but here are some lazy pointers...
you can definitely reuse a lot of code across all 3 platforms (plus MonoWebOS?!)
reusing the code is pretty easy, but you'll need to maintain separate project files for every library on each platform (this can be a chore)
MVVM certainly works for WP7. It's not quite as well catered for in MonoTouch and MonoDroid
some of the main areas you'll need to code separately for each device are:
UI abstractions - each platform has their own idea of "tabs", "lists", "toasts", etc
network operations - the System.Net capabilities are slightly different on each
file IO
multitasking capabilities
device interaction (e.g. location, making calls etc)
interface abstraction and IoC (Ninject?) could help with all of these
The same unit tests should be able to run all 3 platforms?
Update - I can't believe I just stumbled across my own answer... :) In addition to this answer, you might want to look at MonoCross and MvvmCross - and no doubt plenty of other hybrid platforms on the way:
https://github.com/slodge/MvvmCross
http://monocross.net (MVC Rather then Mvvm)
Jonas Follesoe's cross platform development talk: Has to be the most comprehensive resource out there at the moment. He talks about how best to share code and resources, abstract out much of the UI and UX differences, shows viable reusable usage of MVVM across platforms and nice techniques for putting together an almost automated build. (yes, that includes a way for you to compile you monotouch stuff on Visual Studio)
Best of all he has a available source code for the finished product and for a number of the major component individually placed in its own workshop project and a 50 + page pdf detailing the steps to do so.FlightsNorway on github
IMO the only thing missing is how best to handle local data storage across all platforms. In which case I would direct you to Vici Cool Storage an ORM that can work with WP7, MonoTouch and (while not officially supported) MonoDroid.
*Disclaimer* The site documentation isn't the most updated but the source code is available. (Because documentation is Kriptonite to many a programmer)
I think the easiest way to write the code once and have it work on all three platforms will probably be a web-based application. Check out Untappd for example.
You can start by looking at Robert Kozak's MonoTouch MVVM framework. It's just a start though.
MonoTouch MVVM
A repeating theme in my development work has been the use of or creation of an in-house plug-in architecture. I've seen it approached many ways - configuration files (XML, .conf, and so on), inheritance frameworks, database information, libraries, and others. In my experience:
A database isn't a great place to store your configuration information, especially co-mingled with data
Attempting this with an inheritance hierarchy requires knowledge about the plug-ins to be coded in, meaning the plug-in architecture isn't all that dynamic
Configuration files work well for providing simple information, but can't handle more complex behaviors
Libraries seem to work well, but the one-way dependencies have to be carefully created.
As I seek to learn from the various architectures I've worked with, I'm also looking to the community for suggestions. How have you implemented a SOLID plug-in architecture? What was your worst failure (or the worst failure you've seen)? What would you do if you were going to implement a new plug-in architecture? What SDK or open source project that you've worked with has the best example of a good architecture?
A few examples I've been finding on my own:
Perl's Module::Plugable and IOC for dependency injection in Perl
The various Spring frameworks (Java, .NET, Python) for dependency injection.
An SO question with a list for Java (including Service Provider Interfaces)
An SO question for C++ pointing to a Dr. Dobbs article
An SO question regarding a specific plugin idea for ASP.NET MVC
These examples seem to play to various language strengths. Is a good plugin architecture necessarily tied to the language? Is it best to use tools to create a plugin architecture, or to do it on one's own following models?
This is not an answer as much as a bunch of potentially useful remarks/examples.
One effective way to make your application extensible is to expose its internals as a scripting language and write all the top level stuff in that language. This makes it quite modifiable and practically future proof (if your primitives are well chosen and implemented). A success story of this kind of thing is Emacs. I prefer this to the eclipse style plugin system because if I want to extend functionality, I don't have to learn the API and write/compile a separate plugin. I can write a 3 line snippet in the current buffer itself, evaluate it and use it. Very smooth learning curve and very pleasing results.
One application which I've extended a little is Trac. It has a component architecture which in this situation means that tasks are delegated to modules that advertise extension points. You can then implement other components which would fit into these points and change the flow. It's a little like Kalkie's suggestion above.
Another one that's good is py.test. It follows the "best API is no API" philosophy and relies purely on hooks being called at every level. You can override these hooks in files/functions named according to a convention and alter the behaviour. You can see the list of plugins on the site to see how quickly/easily they can be implemented.
A few general points.
Try to keep your non-extensible/non-user-modifiable core as small as possible. Delegate everything you can to a higher layer so that the extensibility increases. Less stuff to correct in the core then in case of bad choices.
Related to the above point is that you shouldn't make too many decisions about the direction of your project at the outset. Implement the smallest needed subset and then start writing plugins.
If you are embedding a scripting language, make sure it's a full one in which you can write general programs and not a toy language just for your application.
Reduce boilerplate as much as you can. Don't bother with subclassing, complex APIs, plugin registration and stuff like that. Try to keep it simple so that it's easy and not just possible to extend. This will let your plugin API be used more and will encourage end users to write plugins. Not just plugin developers. py.test does this well. Eclipse as far as I know, does not.
In my experience I've found there are really two types of plug-in Architectures.
One follows the Eclipse model which is meant to allow for freedom and is open-ended.
The other usually requires plugins to follow a narrow API because the plugin will fill a specific function.
To state this in a different way, one allows plugins to access your application while the other allows your application to access plugins.
The distinction is subtle, and sometimes there is no distiction... you want both for your application.
I do not have a ton of experience with Eclipse/Opening up your App to plugins model (the article in Kalkie's post is great). I've read a bit on the way eclipse does things, but nothing more than that.
Yegge's properties blog talks a bit about how the use of the properties pattern allows for plugins and extensibility.
Most of the work I've done has used a plugin architecture to allow my app to access plugins, things like time/display/map data, etc.
Years ago I would create factories, plugin managers and config files to manage all of it and let me determine which plugin to use at runtime.
Now I usually just have a DI framework do most of that work.
I still have to write adapters to use third party libraries, but they usually aren't that bad.
One of the best plug-in architectures that I have seen is implemented in Eclipse. Instead of having an application with a plug-in model, everything is a plug-in. The base application itself is the plug-in framework.
http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-Plug-in-architecture/plugin_architecture.html
I'll describe a fairly simple technique that I have use in the past. This approach uses C# reflection to help in the plugin loading process. This technique can be modified so it is applicable to C++ but you lose the convenience of being able to use reflection.
An IPlugin interface is used to identify classes that implement plugins. Methods are added to the interface to allow the application to communicate with the plugin. For example the Init method that the application will use to instruct the plugin to initialize.
To find plugins the application scans a plugin folder for .Net assemblies. Each assembly is loaded. Reflection is used to scan for classes that implement IPlugin. An instance of each plugin class is created.
(Alternatively, an Xml file might list the assemblies and classes to load. This might help performance but I never found an issue with performance).
The Init method is called for each plugin object. It is passed a reference to an object that implements the application interface: IApplication (or something else named specific to your app, eg ITextEditorApplication).
IApplication contains methods that allows the plugin to communicate with the application. For instance if you are writing a text editor this interface would have an OpenDocuments property that allows plugins to enumerate the collection of currently open documents.
This plugin system can be extended to scripting languages, eg Lua, by creating a derived plugin class, eg LuaPlugin that forwards IPlugin functions and the application interface to a Lua script.
This technique allows you to iteratively implement your IPlugin, IApplication and other application-specific interfaces during development. When the application is complete and nicely refactored you can document your exposed interfaces and you should have a nice system for which users can write their own plugins.
I once worked on a project that had to be so flexible in the way each customer could setup the system, which the only good design we found was to ship the customer a C# compiler!
If the spec is filled with words like:
Flexible
Plug-In
Customisable
Ask lots of questions about how you will support the system (and how support will be charged for, as each customer will think their case is the normal case and should not need any plug-ins.), as in my experience
The support of customers (or
fount-line support people) writing
Plug-Ins is a lot harder than the
Architecture
Usualy I use MEF. The Managed Extensibility Framework (or MEF for short) simplifies the creation of extensible applications. MEF offers discovery and composition capabilities that you can leverage to load application extensions.
If you are interested read more...
In my experience, the two best ways to create a flexible plugin architecture are scripting languages and libraries. These two concepts are in my mind orthogonal; the two can be mixed in any proportion, rather like functional and object-oriented programming, but find their greatest strengths when balanced. A library is typically responsible for fulfilling a specific interface with dynamic functionality, whereas scripts tend to emphasise functionality with a dynamic interface.
I have found that an architecture based on scripts managing libraries seems to work the best. The scripting language allows high-level manipulation of lower-level libraries, and the libraries are thus freed from any specific interface, leaving all of the application-level interaction in the more flexible hands of the scripting system.
For this to work, the scripting system must have a fairly robust API, with hooks to the application data, logic, and GUI, as well as the base functionality of importing and executing code from libraries. Further, scripts are usually required to be safe in the sense that the application can gracefully recover from a poorly-written script. Using a scripting system as a layer of indirection means that the application can more easily detach itself in case of Something Bad™.
The means of packaging plugins depends largely on personal preference, but you can never go wrong with a compressed archive with a simple interface, say PluginName.ext in the root directory.
I think you need to first answer the question: "What components are expected to be plugins?"
You want to keep this number to an absolute minimum or the number of combinations which you must test explodes. Try to separate your core product (which should not have too much flexibility) from plugin functionality.
I've found that the IOC (Inversion of Control) principal (read springframework) works well for providing a flexible base, which you can add specialization to to make plugin development simpler.
You can scan the container for the "interface as a plugin type advertisement" mechanism.
You can use the container to inject common dependencies which plugins may require (i.e. ResourceLoaderAware or MessageSourceAware).
The Plug-in Pattern is a software pattern for extending the behaviour of a class with a clean interface. Often behaviour of classes is extended by class inheritance, where the derived class overwrites some of the virtual methods of the class. A problem with this solution is that it conflicts with implementation hiding. It also leads to situations where derived class become a gathering places of unrelated behaviour extensions. Also, scripting is used to implement this pattern as mentioned above "Make internals as a scripting language and write all the top level stuff in that language. This makes it quite modifiable and practically future proof". Libraries use script managing libraries. The scripting language allows high-level manipulation of lower level libraries. (Also as mentioned above)
Looking at Microsoft's Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) and various IoC containers (such as Unity), I am failing to see when to use one type of solution over the other. More specifically, it seems like MEF handles most IoC type patterns and that an IoC container like Unity would not be as necessary.
Ideally, I would like to see a good use case where an IoC container would be used instead of, or in addition to, MEF.
When boiled down, the main difference is that IoC containers are generally most useful with static dependencies (known at compile-time), and MEF is generally most useful with dynamic dependencies (known only at run-time).
As such, they are both composition engines, but the emphasis is very different for each pattern. Design decisions thus vary wildly, as MEF is optimized around discovery of unknown parts, rather than registrations of known parts.
Think about it this way: if you are developing your entire application, an IoC container is probably best. If you are writing for extensibility, such that 3rd-party developers will be extending your system, MEF is probably best.
Also, the article in #Pavel Nikolov's answer provides some great direction (it is written by Glenn Block, MEF's program manager).
I've been using MEF for a while and the key factor for when we use it instead of IOC products is that we regularly have 3-5 implementations of a given interface sitting in our plugins directory at a given time. Which one of those implementations should be used is actually something that can only be decided at runtime.
MEF is good at letting you do just that. Typically, IOC is geared toward making sure you could swap out, for a cononical example, an IUserRepository based on ORM Product 1 for ORM Product 2 at some point in the future. However, most IOC solutions assume that there will only be one IUserRepository in effect at a given time.
If, however, you need to choose one based on the input data for a given page request, IOC containers are typically at a loss.
As an example, we do our permission checking and our validation via MEF plugins for a big web app I've been working on for a while. Using MEF, we can look at when the record's CreatedOn date and go digging for the validation plugin that was actually in effect when the record was created and run the record BOTH through that plugin AND the validator that's currently in effect and compare the record's validity over time.
This kind of power also lets us define fallthrough overrides for plugins. The apps I'm working on are actually the same codebase deployed for 30+ implementations. So, we've typically go looking for plugins by asking for:
An interface implementation that is specific to the current site and the specific record type in question.
An interface implementation that is specific to the current site, but works with any kind of record.
An interface that works for any site and any record.
That lets us bundle a set of default plugins that will kick in, but only if that specific implementation doesn't override it with customer specific rules.
IOC is a great technology, but really seems to be more about making it easy to code to interfaces instead of concrete implementations. However, swapping those implementations out is more of a project shift kind of event in IOC. In MEF, you take the flexibility of interfaces and concrete implementations and make it a runtime decision between many available options.
I am apologizing for being off-topic. I simply wanted to say that there are 2 flaws that render MEF an unnecessary complication:
it is attribute based which doesn't do any good to helping you figuring out why things work as they do. There's no way to get to the details burred in the internals of the framework to see what exactly is going on there. There is no way to get a tracing log or hook up to the resolving mechanisms and handle unresolved situations manually
it doesn't have any troubleshooting mechanism to figure out the reasons for why some parts get rejected. Despite pointing at a failing part it doesn't tell you why that part has failed.
So I am very disappointed with it. I spent too much time fighting windmills trying to bootstrap a few classes instead of working on the real problems. I convinced there is nothing better than the old-school dependency injection technique when you have full control over what is created, when, and can trace anything in the VS debugger. I wish somebody who advocates MEF presented a bunch of good reasons as to why would I choose it over plain DI.
I agree that MEF can be a fully capable IoC framework. In fact I'm writing an application right now based on using MEF for both extensibility and IoC. I took the generic parts of it and made it into a "framework" and open sourced it as its own framework called SoapBox Core in case people want to see how it works.
In particular, take a look at how the Host works if you want to see MEF in action.