#626 Refactoring with a new BufferManager, ViewManager

[Matthieu Casanova]

Hey,
I could commit the patch directly but as it is big I prefer suggesting it to you for reading if anyone has the courage :)
The idea is to remove some code of the big jEdit class and handle the chained Buffer and View list in separate classes.
With some changes we can use from modern JVM such as streams.
I know it might be slower than a chained list, but I think it's a problem of nanoseconds and it can make the code much easier to read.
What do you think of the idea ?

[Dale Anson]

I like it. The patch applied cleanly. There are 4 deprecation warnings that weren't there before, all 4 are calls to jEdit._getBuffer. Should those be calls to bufferManager.getBuffer? I always worry about changes like this causing problems with plugins, I'll let you know if I see any issues.

[Matthieu Casanova]

In fact I was thinking a lot about deprecating all methods like getBuffer(), getActiveView() & others and ask to use the new managers, it would help reducing the size of jEdit class, but the problem is plugins, and the fact it is convenient to have all those methods centralized in jEdit.
So I was not sure what was the best choice.
Anyway as long as we don't remove deprecated methods it causes no problem.
However removing methods that are deprecated since several version of jEdit would be nice to get a cleaner codebase don't you think ? (not related with that patch of course).

[Dale Anson]

I agree about removing the deprecated methods at some point, the downside
is quite a few of the useful plugins are not really being maintained
anymore.

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 7:07 PM Matthieu Casanova kpouer@users.sourceforge.net wrote:

In fact I was thinking a lot about deprecating all methods like
getBuffer(), getActiveView() & others and ask to use the new managers, it
would help reducing the size of jEdit class, but the problem is plugins,
and the fact it is convenient to have all those methods centralized in
jEdit.
So I was not sure what was the best choice.
Anyway as long as we don't remove deprecated methods it causes no problem.
However removing methods that are deprecated since several version of
jEdit would be nice to get a cleaner codebase don't you think ? (not
related with that patch of course).

---

• [patches:#626] https://sourceforge.net/p/jedit/patches/626/
  Refactoring with a new BufferManager, ViewManager*

Status: open
Group:
Created: Mon Apr 06, 2020 04:52 PM UTC by Matthieu Casanova
Last Updated: Mon Apr 06, 2020 06:18 PM UTC
Owner: nobody
Attachments:

• bufferManager.patch
  https://sourceforge.net/p/jedit/patches/626/attachment/bufferManager.patch
  (78.7 kB; application/octet-stream)

Hey,
I could commit the patch directly but as it is big I prefer suggesting it
to you for reading if anyone has the courage :)
The idea is to remove some code of the big jEdit class and handle the
chained Buffer and View list in separate classes.
With some changes we can use from modern JVM such as streams.
I know it might be slower than a chained list, but I think it's a problem
of nanoseconds and it can make the code much easier to read.
What do you think of the idea ?

---

Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in
https://sourceforge.net/p/jedit/patches/626/

To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit
https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/

[Matthieu Casanova]

If we have the sources of those plugins and the developper is not available I would be happy to take a look.

[Matthieu Casanova]

In fact about the two deprecated calls to _getBuffer(), it would be easy to expose the method in the BufferManager interface and call it, but I was not sure we want to have 2 methods getBuffer and _getBuffer.
It is low level and maybe only one method should be exposed (but I was not sure how to do it right)

[Matthieu Casanova]

Hello,
I fixed the two deprecated api calls. I did it without exposing _getBuffer() publicly because I think it might be disturbing in the api to have two methods
getBuffer() and _getBuffer(), but if many plugins needs both, then I can expose it too.
What do you think ? Should I apply the patch ?

[Matthieu Casanova]

I finally committed the patch.
it was possible to add a convenient forEach() api directly in the BufferManager, but I prefered not and return a List of buffers because iterating over buffers needs synchronization and we don't want a slow forEach callback break everything.