It is good that you brought this up, because the double object factory is annoying and creates a lot of unexpected situations(problems with class reloading and OSGi). Having just one container would make it easier for everybody, users and s2 developers, if it can be pulled off.
This kind of change could be too big for a 2.x release I think musachy On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com> wrote: > We could probably make a list and verify. I think the API should be pretty > comprehensive about a lot of those things. > > -bp > > > On Dec 1, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote: > >> ah I see what you mean. yes that would be a good idea, I think that >> would work as long as all the containers have what we need, which I am >> not sure if it is in the spec or not (havent read it), like: >> >> * create/inject objects and statics (duh) >> * lookup all implementation by type >> >> that's all I can think off the top of my head. >> >> musachy >> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com> >> wrote: >>> I was actually talking about expanding it out like Chris mentioned. I don't >>> see any reason why those who want to use the container that Struts is using >>> shouldn't be able to. Since the annotations and APIs will be standard >>> across Guice and Spring with the JSR, it seems like it would be possible to >>> allow the application and framework to use the same DI container, just >>> different Injectors. >>> >>> The default could be Guice but allow Spring to be pluggable (or even >>> discoverable). As long as the internals of Struts are compliant, it should >>> work fine. This also provides the benefit of configuration reduction in >>> web.xml and a more comprehensive solution. It would also get Struts out of >>> the business of building objects and requiring additional configuration and >>> plugins for different DI containers. I would guess it would clean up the >>> double ObjectFactory issues as well. >>> >>> -bp >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote: >>> >>>> this is not related to the application itself, you can still use any >>>> IoC you want. This is for the IoC that is used internally to wire >>>> struts internals together, which at the moment is an old version of >>>> guice which is in xwork. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Chris Pratt <thechrispr...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
