Non-invasive version of TyphoonComponentFactoryAware

[jasperblues]

We have a non-invasive version of TyphoonPropertyInjectionDelegate (by that I mean your class doesnt' have to have any dependencies on Typhoon). .

. . we need the same for TyphoonComponentFactoryAware . . I guess this would be just injecting the factory from the block/XML-style assembly

Implementation:

1. Define a component called TyphoonFactoryInjector that is factory aware.
2. Add it to your assembly. . (or its added by default? )

[jasperblues]

Planning to implement this in the next 48 hours. . .

[jasperblues]

Here’s how I plan to do it:

• We can do type matching on TyphoonComponentFactory and implement the injector in TyphoonComponentFactory+InstanceBuilder
• Since TyphoonAssembly (and sub-classes) only relate to the block-style assembly I don’t want to couple the base assembly to these classes. . . instead I will make the block-style assembly register a TyphoonComponentFactoryPostProcessor for itself. . and this post processor will like for any injects by type requiring a TyphoonAssembly or sub-class and instead inject the factory (since the assembly will be posing in front of the factory - that’s how it works). . . this way we keep the separation of concerns.

[alexgarbarev]

Jasper, did you start working on this issue or it's still open for anyone?

[jasperblues]

I got caught up in some other things (TCF+InstanceBuilder - refactor to create NSInvocation without requiring initTarg instance). . . you can take it.

[jasperblues]

Once this feature is done, we should update this StackOverflow question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20405636/typhoon-injecting-a-view-controller-provider/20407286#20407286

• Option 1: TyphoonComponentFactoryAware
• Option 2: Inject assembly interface (this feature)
• Option 3: TyphoonFactoryProvider

[jasperblues]

If you take #153 can I take this back again tomorrow?

[alexgarbarev]

#153 is implemented. You can take this issue

[alexgarbarev]

Now this issue implemented and waits for review

[alexgarbarev]

I did it a bit different, not so much as you've suggested above. Please review and refactor if needed.

[jasperblues]

It works fine, however I think its important to keep the TyphoonBlockComponentFactory concerns separate from the base, which is why I suggested using a TyphoonComponentFactoryPostProcessor.

To do this we'd need:

• [definition injectProperty:@selector(someProperty) withFactory]; <---- We need to introduce this style anyway for initializers

. . the post processor would then run over the block assembly and convert any auto-injected assemblies to inject the factory.

[alexgarbarev]

[definition injectProperty:@selector(someProperty) withFactory];

Can't be done in objective-c. You cannot use withFactory without argument after keyword.

I agree with using TyphoonComponentFactoryPostProcessor for assemblies. I'll try to do it.

Also about method naming: I want to note that using register as method name is not good idea because it is reserved keyword (as const or id), so I cannot cmd+click to this method and also it hightlighted with wrong color (in xcode at least). Better is to use registerDefinition: and registerPostProcessor:

[jasperblues]

Oops. . . how did I write that!?!?

I meant:

[definition injectWithFactory:@selector(someProperty)];

Yes, lets rename register. . . AppCode has been showing me that its a reserved keyword for a long time, but nothing has been done about it yet. . . Its basically an internal method (unless someone wants to use the base factory directly) so we can rename it with minimal impact.

[alexgarbarev]

Ok.
I used method name

[definition injectPropertyWithComponentFactory:@selector(property)]

because we already used factory word in definitions methods to specify some objects factories (not TyphoonComponentsFactory) - see method:

- (void)injectProperty:(SEL)selector withDefinition:(TyphoonDefinition *)factoryDefinition selector:(SEL)factorySelector;

What do you think about method naming? How should we indicate to user that we will inject TyphoonComponentsFactory - not SomeObjectFactory

[jasperblues]

👍

[jasperblues]

Pushing this as 1.8.0. . although we may refactor internally, useful as-is.

[alexgarbarev]

What would you like to refactor for this issue?

[jasperblues]

Oops.

We discussed using a PostProcessor instead of making the base TyphoonComponentFactory aware of the block style.

It looks like you've already implemented that.