> It would be really nice to integrate with CDI. There are two ways of doing
> that: making Tapestry-IoC implement CDI (harder, more interesting) or making
> Tapestry-IoC a portable extension to CDI (easier, less interesting, but
> still interesting)
> (http://docs.jboss.org/weld/reference/1.0.0/en-US/html/extend.html).
I think making tapestry-ioc a portable extension is the way to go.
Think about scenarios where I want to use EJB and CDI beans in the
backend, while tapestry and tapestry-ioc is sitting in the frontend.
Just like people are already doing with spring now.
If we would implement the CDI specification with tapestry-ioc, we end
up rebuilding most of what the application server already provides us
for free. Also we then have 2 implementations in place: tapestry-ioc
as well as the application server. For me, Integrating is alway better
than (re-)implementing. But thats just my oppinion of course.
Piero
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
