Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
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.
Why not setter injection?
Because I don't need it :) As you have seen in this thread there are
many arguments about a "confusing" mechanism or "hack" or whatever. My
opinion is that while constructor injection is a clean approach, setter
injection might really be more confusion.
But as I already said, if someone wants to add setter injection as well,
I'm not against it.
Guys, remember the real-blocks container story? Two reasons led to the
choice of OSGi: there are existing implementations, and it stopped the
endless discussions about what the container API should be.
We have exactly the same here. "why not this or that" and "I don't need
it but you can implement it" lead nowhere. NIH syndrome at work.
Cocoon's goal is not about containers, but about components. Cocoon was
one of the first component-oriented frameworks, but times have changed!
Carsten, what's wrong with the Spring bridge?
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://bluxte.net http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
