This sounds pretty much as a sore looser report. Looks like you got serious beef with us (RHT): - http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/issues/detail?id=288 (care to back up those claims?)
And Bob, thanks for replying to my Guice + MC feedback. ;-) Bob Lee wrote: > If 299 looks superficially like Guice, it's because I was heavily > involved. I left the EG over a year ago because I disagreed with the > leadership and technical direction. > > So far, I haven't bothered to actively oppose 299 for a few reasons: > > 1) 299 doesn't seem to have gained any real traction. Only RedHat is > pushing it. You've heard of design by committee? 299 is design by Gavin. :-) > > 2) 299 is part of EE, which we don't use or care much about. I think > the risk of 299 imposing itself on SE is zero. > > 3) I choose to spend my time constructively (on the Java language, > Guice, JSR 166, Android, etc.), not playing political games. > > My advice to our users is to continue using the Guice API. Your code > will be more maintainable as a result. JSR 299 does not represent > consensus. It's a land grab by unqualified vendors who would rather > prematurely set an unproven design in stone than compete on a level > playing field. It's EJB and JSF all over again. By comparison, the Guice > API has enjoyed many times the scrutiny by people who actually use and > understand this stuff. Guice is simpler, better specified and more > future proof as a result. > > In other words, Guice will not directly support 299, but you could > easily build a 299 extension for Guice. You'd be better off sticking to > the Guice API though. > > Bob > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-guice" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
