[Qt-creator] Couple of questions about the design of Qt Creator

[Elvis Stansvik]

2017-09-11 10:00 GMT+02:00 Elvis Stansvik <elvstone at gmail.com>:
> 2017-09-11 9:50 GMT+02:00 Eike Ziller <Eike.Ziller at qt.io>:
>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2017, at 09:24, Elvis Stansvik <elvstone at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2017-09-10 11:31 GMT+02:00 Elvis Stansvik <elvstone at gmail.com>:
>>>> 2017-09-10 11:03 GMT+02:00 Elvis Stansvik <elvstone at gmail.com>:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> In a quest to find inspiration for good Qt application architectures,
>>>>> I've been looking at the plugin based one you're using in Qt Creator.
>>>>> It strikes me as a really nice design.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been reading the available docs on it, and dug into the code a
>>>>> bit. This may be a bit much to ask, but I was wondering if any of you
>>>>> devs could answer a few questions that popped up? It would be much
>>>>> appreciated!
>>>>>
>>>>> It's really just two questions, about two different topics:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The Invoker / invoke<...> Thingie:
>>>>>
>>>>> You have ExtensionSystem::Invoker and the associated invoke<..>
>>>>> helper, which are syntactic sugar for achieving "soft" extension
>>>>> points. It seems it's not used that much (?). I grepped for
>>>>> "Invoker|invoke<" in the code and could only find a few uses of it. I
>>>>> also grepped for "invokeMethod" to see if the approach was being used
>>>>> "manually" so to speak (without the sugar), and found a few more hits.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the motivation for adding this? I assume it's for cases where
>>>>> you want a looser coupling between plugins (no linking, no shared
>>>>> header), but can you give an example of when you really wanted that
>>>>> looser coupling and why?
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The Plugin System in General:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there anything about the plugin system in its current form, or how
>>>>> it is used, that you would do fundamentally different if you could do
>>>>> it all over again? Any areas that you find messy/awkward, that need a
>>>>> re-think/makeover? In short: What are the biggest warts in the code in
>>>>> your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> As soon as I hit send, I realized I have a third question:
>>>>
>>>> 3. Communication Between Plugins:
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be two main mechanisms through which plugins
>>>> communicate: Either objects that implement shared interfaces are added
>>>> to the plugin manager object pool and picked up by downstream or
>>>> upstream plugins (in the top-down or bottom-up phase of plugin
>>>> initialization, respectively), or a singleton instance is acquired and
>>>> calls made on it.
>>>>
>>>> Is the former approach used when dependants provide functionality to
>>>> their dependees (which are unknown), and the latter approach used when
>>>> dependees use their dependants (which are known)? Is that the deciding
>>>> factor?
>>>
>>> And finally, a couple of more down-to-earth questions:
>>>
>>> 1. ICore, the class is concrete, so why the I in the name? Was it
>>> abstract at one point?
>>
>> Yes historically.
>>
>>> How do you decide whether a class should get
>>> the interface 'I' in its name?
>>
>> It’s a mess ;)
>> I suppose the trend goes to not prepend the ‘I’.
>
> Ok, I figured there was a history :)
>
>>
>>> The same with e.g. IContext, though
>>> that one at least has a few virtuals and is used as a base class (but
>>> no pure ones AFAICS, so still concrete).
>>
>> Historically these classes where “pure” virtual (except for the QObject base).
>> We moved to a more “configurable” approach then to avoid the need to create subclasses for every little thing, while keeping the option open in many cases.
>
> Alright, this is what I suspected. Thanks for confirming.
>
>>
>>> 2. The relatively liberal use of singleton classes. We all know that
>>> is a debated subject, and I don't have an opinion either way. I'm just
>>> interested in if you have some (spoken or unspoken) policy regarding
>>> singletons in the project. Do you want to minimize the use of them, or
>>> is it OK for newer code, or is it judged on a case-by-case basis? Have
>>> you had any moments where you really wish you hadn't used singletons?
>>> (e.g. I know it can sometimes hurt testability).
>>
>> We always had a liberal amount of singletons in Qt Creator, and we even moved most of them to be classes with mostly static methods a while ago. There are no plans to move away from that. If you have a central hub for “managing” something, feel free to use a singleton/static methods.

Getting back to this semi-old thread with another question if that's OK:

Did the liberal use of singletons never get in the way of
testability/mockability? Was there ever a moment when you though "o
boy, I wish this thing didn't reach out to so many static things"
while writing tests? If so, did you find a way to deal with that, or
is it always just a compromise?

I'm asking because in my current project, I'm trying to think about
testability, using mocks where it makes sense, and one thing that
really hurts testing in isolation is when code simply reaches out for
something global (like a static instance/helper).

Elvis

>
> Okay. I also personally think the convenience of singletons outweighs
> their drawbacks in many cases. Nice to see this liberating attitude.
>
> Thanks for sharing Eike.
>
> Elvis
>
>>
>> Br, Eike
>>
>> --
>> Eike Ziller
>> Principal Software Engineer
>>
>> The Qt Company GmbH
>> Rudower Chaussee 13
>> D-12489 Berlin
>> eike.ziller at qt.io
>> http://qt.io
>> Geschäftsführer: Mika Pälsi,
>> Juha Varelius, Mika Harjuaho
>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 144331 B
>>