aye

time for a movie, cya around @hastebrot

have fun, cya

@hastebrot Forgive my ignorance.. Can you explain how you get dependency injection for free with FP?

@ron Great, I'll release FXLauncher some time this week 🙂 Need to catch up on all your additions.

@edvin service locator function? (oh wait, that's JNDI)

2 more GitHub stars and we're at 400 ☀️ ⭐

a pity you cant do

tab(”title”, find(aView::class))

@edvin At least inversion of control should be for free with pure and higher order functions (some discussion here: http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/103508/how-is-dependency-inversion-related-to-higher-order-functions/103528#103528)

Also: I wonder how we can modify the behavior of `inject`ed components in Tornado. I'm thinking of tests with `Scope`s. I can slightly imagine that this is easy with

by di()

and Google Guice.

@hastebrot Scopes partition the objects in an application and those partitions can carry over in the test cases. For example, if there's a scope "PaymentWindow" that builds an object graph of all things for an instance of PaymentWindow, there can be a bunch of tests that could pull in a scope-limited object graph of mocked PaymentWindow test objects. In this case, the DI works as with a non-scoped test case. DI pulls in test implementations. Where I see scopes relating to testing is that you might write test infrastructure to initiate a scope. In TornadoFX, an opened window might create a scope but in an automated test case, you might have to programmatically create the scope.

My GPS says I'm in Zurich main station. Strange. Maybe the train manipulates the GPS signal. Ok, the windows have something metallic. I'll sleep.

@edvin did you see that PR for a mutex in fxlauncher? I have some doubts about it. First it brings in a dependency, making the launcher way bigger, second I dont know if fxlauncher should do something like this. This feels more like something the application itself should do

@ron I saw it. A mutex isn't necessarily a bad idea, but an external dependency is for sure. To reimplement it wouldn't be a huge job, but it should probably not be based on any files, just a listening port. That way we can't end up in a situation where a stray file prevents the app from starting. Also, basing it on JUnique would change the license, so that's a no-no.

But why should an application itself not handle that?

Fxlauncher had one job 'get the files and start the application'

The requirement that only one app is active brings business logic into the launcher

doing mutex with ports opens up other problems like finding out a free port and such

Wow so quiet here

Sorry Ron, had a lot of stuff going on at work today. We've got painters and carpenters at the office and we had some network outage issues, as well as several other things that went to sh*t today 🙂

@ron Maybe we don't need the app mutex functionality in the launcher. It would take some work to create an alternative to JUnique for sure..

agreed

@User uploaded a file: and commented: This comment on one of the TornadoFX Screencasts on YouTube just made my day:

Today I'll port a little more to the guide and start thinking about what do showcase for the next screencast 🙂

I'm thinking about providing a more "web 2.0" look for the workspace...

I am going to make 2 new options in fxlauncher 1) the ignoreUpdateErrors and 2)showSimpleErrorDialog

and what is a "web 2.0" look?

@ron Perfect! I think web 2.0 is hamburger menu, flat design etc. Something like this thing from the Microsoft Surface Studio commercial:

@User uploaded a file:

Huh.. It's called "My workspace".. Anybody know if this is from an actual framework of some kind?