Hi Vincent, Thanks for your view on this. Just for the record, as you already know, I am a big fan of Maven and I will continue to use and promote Maven whether or not it uses Spring. ;-) I just want to dig a bit deeper in this discussion as it's something that's been on my mind for a while and I am not sure that it's been fully clarified yet. I am sure some other users may be asking the same question.
(I've added a couple of comments below) On 8/5/05, Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Van de Velde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: vendredi 5 août 2005 11:14 > > To: Maven Developers List > > Subject: Re: [m2] getting involved? > > > > > > > > BTW - I like plexus. Haven't noticed the project before. I had used > > > avalon and had a look at pico+nano before. Plexus seems to be > powerfull > > > like avalon containers but less invasive (like the spring-framework). > > > Maybe I'll use that in my project. Would you again decide for plexus > if > > > you'd choose now? > > > > > > In what way would Spring be more invasive than Plexus? My issue with the > > Plexus container is that it is completely unknown to most developers, > that > > there are no books and hardly any documentation on the site. I assume > > there > > must be good reasons for starting yet another IoC container (Can > somebody > > elaborate on those reasons?) > > There are 2 viewpoints you need to consider: > > 1/ First viewpoint: As a Maven2 user or as a Maven2 plugin writer > > As a Maven user/plugin writer you don't have to care as it's transparent > for > you, even if you're writing plugins. So it's a non-issue. This makes sense to me. The philosophy of IoC and DI is to provide services around POJO's (let me correct; MOJO's ;-), it should be pretty transparent for the end user. Just wondering here if it would be usefull for users to profit from the tool support that comes with Spring (beandoc, Spring-IDE, ... and probably other stuff to come). Also, I think the out-of-box support for JMX would make sense for remote configuration of a Maven build server. You could also have a plugin that wants to profit from a persistence template to e.g. write results in a database, or Web Services to call a build target remotely. 2/ Second viewpoint: As a Maven core developer. > > In that case, you're the one developing the solution and it's your call to > choose whatever technology you wish. The current Maven developers are > aware > of the other IOC containers but for now they have preferred to use their > own. Here we have a misunderstanding. My question is not meant as critisism. It's mearly a reflection that I am making. I think it's a fair question to ask. Since this hasn't been fully responded to on TSS, I ask again. I do agree with you that one drawback is its support. That said it does > also bring lots of advantages to them like the ability to quickly make > changes to it to support Maven2 use cases. I believe those advantages are > currently greater that the disadvantages. Fully agree. You, as a Maven developer, own all of the code so you can easily customize. So would Plexus be more a build-oriented IoC container? Conclusion: 99.9999% of all persons around Maven 2 are users and they don't > need to care as it's transparent for them. That's why I posted the question on the developers list ;-) -Vincent > > PS: This represents only my analysis of the situation. I'm not speaking > for > the m2 team although I believe they would agree with this :-) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Would this be a correct conclusion? Plugin developers and M2 users, are not really exposed to Plexus. You can easily write your plugins without having to learn about another IoC container. Cheers, Thomas
