-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 10:13:33 +0100
From: Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RT] Simplifying component handling
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
So I'm coming back to my idea, is anyone against adding constructor
injection to ECM++ or at least make it pluggable so I can add it for my
own projects? The change adds only a feature while maintaining 100%
compatibility.
I have strong reservations about components using a mixed model (i.e.
dependency injection + Avalon interfaces), as these components will look as
"semi-POJOs" that bring some potential confusion about their lifecycle:
- is the component ready after the constructor has been called?
- what is the call order between setter-based injection and Avalon lifecycle
interfaces?
- what is the lifestyle of a POJO: thread safe, single threaded?
So although I'm all for a simplification of components and moving away from
Avalon, I'm strongly against using mixed models.
Now, do we need to make changes to ECM++ at all? Cocoon 2.2 allows the
integration of other containers such as Spring (Carsten, _you_ wrote that!),
so we just have to *use* what is already there, using a solid existing
container rather than a half-baked solution.
I'm with Sylvain's and Gianugo's oppinion. I also see users getting
confused with multiple choices of "how to write a component". I'd say in
this area we need a revolution instead of an evolution.
Maybe we need a ECM+++ to still keep our fingers on the container.
- --
Giacomo Pati
Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com
Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDulHrLNdJvZjjVZARAjuFAKDI9RUXPxdJxxxPmLypZ5OYGW994gCgh1TE
zwGKN5VX/acJGPD8c5/pjOg=
=oKmG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
