I am not suggesting a strict conformance here. And I even don't think it's practicable or worthwhile at this stage:) My point is that if we can increase its testability to some extent, the lives of us developers will certainly be easier. For example, maybe we can introduce DI on some selected root entities of aggregates, which I don't believe it will be at the expense of a considerable performance hit. Sorry I couldn't give more specific hints on concrete classes for I am not very familiar with view or activity related Java classes.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Given some of the call overheads that are introduced with dependency > inject I wouldn't like to see it made a core principal for development > work. > > I'm a firm believer that in development priorities a feature which makes > developers lives easier should be way below feature that make user > interaction more pleasant. > > Al. > > Freepine wrote: > > I agree that performance is vital to embedded system, but testability > > is also important for quality, productivity, etc... > > At least it's not detrimental:) I know it's nontrivial to have this > > kind of dependency injection based on current implementation, but it > > would be very nice if we could. > > > > -Freepine > > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > A number of things which could come under the label "common accepted > > Java practice" are more about ensuring testability and simplifying > the > > work of future maintainers than they are about performance. As with > > every platform it's a choice that has to be made, and given some > > of the > > comments about the home screen recently I think performance is > rightly > > the current focus. > > > > Al. > > > > Dianne Hackborn wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Koert > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > > > > > > All the books that you read nowadays always promote the idea > > of loose > > > coupling... > > > > > > > > > Abstracting the entire platform underneath Activity would probably > > > introduce a bit more overhead than we want to take on for a mobile > > > platform. > > > > > > Just my personal opinion, but I think there are quite a few things > > > about "common accepted Java practice" that are detrimental to well > > > performing mobile system. > > > > > > -- > > > Dianne Hackborn > > > Android framework engineer > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > > > > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have > > time > > > to provide private support. All such questions should be posted on > > > public forums, where I and others can see and answer them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ====== > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > > subsidiaries. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries. > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
