On 17 Aug 2011, at 20:41, Dan Allen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 23:12, Shane Bryzak <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17/08/11 13:05, Dan Allen wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 22:57, Shane Bryzak <[email protected]> wrote: >> Of course, but we break that rule. Solder is one example, there's multiple >> utility classes in the implementation that are required to compile other >> modules. >> >> I consider that a bug (or a work in progress, depending on how you look at >> it). > > George suggested that we make solder a single jar, and to me it makes sense > considering it's a set of utility features, and it would solve this problem. > > I don't agree. Solder is not just utility classes. It has very clear APIs and > implementations in some places. There is quite a lot of implementation > detail, in fact, to implement things like the service handler and the generic > beans. > > I am okay with moving more of the utility classes into the API, if they truly > are utility APIs. > > Combining it all is just giving up on good design, IMO.
I assume these are utility methods? In which case just make them non-static and injectable beans? _______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
