You should aim to ship with neither Spring nor PicoContainer.
It is perfectly possible to construct a set of DI components that
comprise FtpServer and in a main method do :
Foo foo = new Foo();
Bar bar = new Bar(foo);
Apple apple = new Apple();
apple.setFoo(foo);
apple.setBar(bar);
This way, open doors for others to take your components and ship
standalone, or using Spring as part of a later app, using Pico as
part of a larger app, using Geronimo or using EJB 3.0 (etc).
Choosing a DI framework early is nuts.
- Paul
On Oct 1, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
Paul Hammant wrote:
OK, if we're keen about Dependency Injection, we'd need to change
a lot. The basic FtpConfig component should have little
knowledge of UserManager (and others), and no coupling to it...
If we do aim for a DI/IoC approach (and I think we should), should
we choose a DI implementation (Pico, Spring...) that we ship as the
default implementation? Or, should we try to implement a
specialized runtime ourselves? I would certainly go for the former
option and would favour Spring but I'm guessing that Paul won't
agree on this choice :-).
/niklas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
