I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as I can still swap in my trusty Spring IoC container, I can't see my team moving away from it any time soon, but I still want to try to stay as current as possible on Struts. (*Chris*)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com>wrote: > They'll be part of the Guice distribution and under ASLv2 since Guice uses > that. > > The real question is how to setup the Injector's. I tend to think this > layout would be best: > > Base > | > | > _________ > | | > | | > Struts App > > > The Base injector will contain the JEE objects (request, response, etc.) > and any Struts objects that can be used by the application. The Struts > injector will contain all of the private objects that should not be > accessible to the application. The App injector will contain all the > application objects like Actions and such. > > -bp > > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote: > > > good point Brian, that has came up also. I have a couple of concerns > > about it, like what is the status of the jsr and will the API > > (annotations) will be under a decent (read ASF compatible license) > > license and in maven central? which is usually a pain point when it > > comes to Sun APIs. > > > > musachy > > > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com> > wrote: > >> I'd suggest using Guice trunk and the JSR annotations rather than the > Guice annotations. I'd also make the injector pluggable so that people can > plug in Spring/Guice/etc easily. > >> > >> -bp > >> > >> > >> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote: > >> > >>> I have talked to a couple of people before and everyone seems to agree > >>> that using guice instead of our internal IoC container (guice pre 1.0 > >>> I think), would be a good idea. I don't have any experience with guice > >>> 2.0, but looking at the docs it seems like porting our stuff would not > >>> be that hard. Less code to maintain, and we get more > >>> features/improvements. If we go with this idea, guice would be shaded > >>> into xwork to avoid classpath conflicts. > >>> > >>> what do you think? > >>> > >>> musachy > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > >
