Commit it and let the community implement the rest... seems to have
worked for at least one project I know of... sorta... kinda... um,
well nevermind.
--jason
On Feb 26, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I think we are all past the old concerns. The problem now is how
do we switch, which is not an easy problem. On my laptop I have
about half of the server switched to use xbean-reflect, which is
xml friendly, but I got sucked into the configId problem.
-dain
On Feb 25, 2006, at 11:17 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 2/26/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why would anyone object to using XBean+Spring?
I think that sounds like a good idea.
Well the objection wasn't to XBean and Spring per se - they weren't
even in the picture back then. The objection was to using XML as the
configuraiton mechanism instead of CAR files. Way back when CARs were
being suggested as the configuration mechanism, I entered the debate
with the rationale that we should use XML instead because it's is
easy
to change, it's easy to understand, etc. At that time, there were
objections to this line of reasoning because of the overhead of
parsing the XML on every startup. The argument was made that CAR
files
would start up much faster. I have no idea if this is true or not but
IMO the advantages of using XML (and a well known XML dialect like
Spring) far outweigh the disadvantages, especially when it comes to
offering users a simple but very powerful experience.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D
\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo (http://geronimo.apache.org/)
Castor (http://castor.org/)
