XWork is more than DI. If drives the workflow under the hoods of Struts. We would need all of that code in addition to the DI. The idea is to drop the DI part of XWork and replace it with Guice 2.1 (which should support JSR 330) and just pull in the rest of it.
-bp On Dec 8, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: > Then what was the point of getting the IP for XWork? > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Brian Pontarelli <br...@pontarelli.com> wrote: >> JSR 299 is EE while 330 is SE. >> >> -bp >> >> >> On Dec 8, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: >> >>> I've been loosely following the thread. It sounds like three DI >>> projects are being/will be supported: >>> * XWork >>> * Guice >>> * JSR-299/JSR-330 >>> >>> Why three? I can understand the last because it's EE, but the other >>> two are proprietary. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Lukasz Lenart >>> <lukasz.len...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> In my opinion, current DI support is sufficient (it can be made more >>>> readable, but that's it ;-), I really don't get it what's the problem with >>>> double ObjectFactory issue??? >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> -- >>>> Lukasz >>>> http://www.lenart.org.pl/ >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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
