Pete and I also talked with Jürgen Höller from Spring at the JSFDays. If I remember this correctly Jürgen said that they are not yet implementing JSR-299 but follow it's progress closely. Even in future versions (earliest 3.1) they will probably not implement the full Spec but do like they did with JSR-250 Common Annotations.
I think Spring has lot more to offer then simple IOC. At the end of the day it has nothing to do with Spring vs Guice vs WebBeans but what counts is that 1 engineer doesn't have to take care about such simple things anymore! I also used spring-2.5 at Verisign but I never used @Autowire but only @Resource because I (and a lot of other VS principals) don't like it if my code is tied to one single 'vendor'. If you look at JSR-250 e.g. @Resource is defined to 'take blablub from _JNDI_"! so the whole common annotations are heavily JNDI based. But who does this JNDI-only in praxis? Nobody! So the SE thingy is a de-facto standard for JSR-150 as probably will be for JSR-299. just my (highly personal) .02 LieGrue, strub --- Arash Rajaeeyan <arash.rajaee...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do, 16.4.2009: > Von: Arash Rajaeeyan <arash.rajaee...@gmail.com> > Betreff: Re: JSR 299 / WebBeans -> Expert Group > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org > Datum: Donnerstag, 16. April 2009, 20:04 > I am also very interested to have a > full SE version of open web beans.any > one here has checked Spring RCP ? > Spring has a full stack competing with Java EE stack. > they have also a solution for RCP and Fat Clients, > an SE version of JSR 299 can attract lots of Spring > developers, the EE > dependent one will not be much interesting to them. > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:13 AM, James Carman > <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > wrote: > > > > > > Bob originally was interested in having IOC for > SE also. But from what > > I've seen so far, he is imho one of those who requests > that all the > > annotations should go under javax.se. > > > > > > To me this sounds more like 'oh this thing can't > beat guice, so it should > > be for EJB only which we do not use anyway' ... > > > > So, why write a spec that's loosely based on Guice (a > lot of concepts > > look similar; along with Seam) when it can't be used > in place of it? > > That seems silly. We should strive for the best > all-around IoC > > paradigm for Java, regardless of where it's > running. It should have > > hooks for different scopes (similar to Guice and > Spring and HiveMind, > > etc) > > > > > > -- > Arash Rajaeeyan >
