On 2/27/07, Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But... we'll miss the fisticuffs.
Not if you sign up for the Guice mailing list. :)
Konstantin, you're more than welcome to try peddling Pico on our list. ;)
Bob
But... we'll miss the fisticuffs.
--- Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right. Sorry for the noise.
>
> On 2/27/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps a better venue for this discussion would
> be the Guide
> > developers mailing list.
> >
> > * http://groups.google.
You're right. Sorry for the noise.
On 2/27/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps a better venue for this discussion would be the Guide
developers mailing list.
* http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice
-Ted.
On 2/27/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pico approach at least leaves your managed classes
alone.
Right, and Guice supports both approaches (the external approach via custom
providers which are roughly equivalent to Pico's external configuration).
Strictly speaking, pico
Perhaps a better venue for this discussion would be the Guide
developers mailing list.
* http://groups.google.com/group/google-guice
-Ted.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROT
--- Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > U, strictly speaking, that's still code. ;)
> >
> > Strictly speaking yes. But it is externalized and
> > does not impose anything on used classes.
>
>
> It imposes something on
On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> U, strictly speaking, that's still code. ;)
Strictly speaking yes. But it is externalized and
does not impose anything on used classes.
It imposes something on me, the programmer.
What if I like to use another session impl
--- Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > My point still holds true--Pico requires more
> code
> > > than Guice.
> >
> > Structly speaking using pico in a webapp requires
> no
> > code at all (except of course container
> conf
--- Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > WW 8.1.6 has some other bugs,
>
> That's being very polite ;) WW drives me nuts.
( I meant WLS )
You do not have support contract? If yes, it is even
more fun ;)
regards,
[ Konstanti
--- Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WW 8.1.6 has some other bugs,
That's being very polite ;) WW drives me nuts.
I was just saying that the J4 distro seems to work
well.
d.
Don't get soak
On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point still holds true--Pico requires more code
> than Guice.
Structly speaking using pico in a webapp requires no
code at all (except of course container configuration
in xml or whatever else)
U, strictly speaking, that's
--- Dave Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I'm still using XW 1.x because I'm using WW2
> > ( can not move to S2 yet due to 1.5+ requirement )
>
> FWIW the Retro'd jars have (so far) worked
> flawlessly
> for us on Weblogic 8.1/JDK1.4.
--- Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> My point still holds true--Pico requires more code
> than Guice.
Structly speaking using pico in a webapp requires no
code at all (except of course container configuration
in xml or whatever else)
>
> And annotation introduces explicit dependency
The architecture between webwork and struts2 has changed.
Every other project that provides the same functionality, (e.g.
Plexus, Spring, etc.) was written as a plugin in Struts2. Technically
it is possible to use the object factories, interceptors, etc. without
using the plugin architecture but
--- Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still using XW 1.x because I'm using WW2
> ( can not move to S2 yet due to 1.5+ requirement )
FWIW the Retro'd jars have (so far) worked flawlessly
for us on Weblogic 8.1/JDK1.4.2_08.
d.
___
--- Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > If S2 architecture is the same than WW2, then it
> is
> > not necessary to register it as plugin - it's just
> an
> > object factory and couple of filters ( which are
> > independet of
On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If S2 architecture is the same than WW2, then it is
not necessary to register it as plugin - it's just an
object factory and couple of filters ( which are
independet of S2/WW )
XWork 2 uses an older version of Guice to wire togethe
--- Tom Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There is no pico/nanocontainer support in struts2 at
> the moment. (I
> don't think it made it over in the merger) IMO this
> is best
> implemented as an external plugin anyhow. All
> external plugins thus
> far have used googlecode to host their
On 2/26/07, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
bind(Session.class)
.annotatedWith(Secure.class)
.to(FailoverSessionDelegator.class);
Then apply "@Inject @Secure" wherever you want a secure Session. You can
obviously reuse the @Secure annotation elsewhere, too.
If I were to really impleme
On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using these key objects is more verbose than using
> annotations with Guice.
Not necessarily. There are no references to keys in
my code, only in container buildup. And only in
cases where this is necessary.
My point still hold
--- Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> > I'd like to say that I'm codeveloper of
> > pico/nanocontainer.
>
>
> I've used Pico and Nano. Nano uses my AOP framework.
> You should try Guice.
It's dificult to keep tr
There is documentation: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd2fhx4z_5df5hw8
Bob
On 2/26/07, Alexandru Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/26/07, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> > I'd like to say that I'm codevelo
On 2/26/07, Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
> I'd like to say that I'm codeveloper of
> pico/nanocontainer.
I've used Pico and Nano. Nano uses my AOP framework. You should try Guice.
> What's important is that you don't
On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bob,
I'd like to say that I'm codeveloper of
pico/nanocontainer.
I've used Pico and Nano. Nano uses my AOP framework. You should try Guice.
What's important is that you don't depend on the
> implementation. Depending
> on the in
There is no pico/nanocontainer support in struts2 at the moment. (I
don't think it made it over in the merger) IMO this is best
implemented as an external plugin anyhow. All external plugins thus
far have used googlecode to host their projects. If you do create
this plugin, please register you
On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Pico is also integated with WW2 and struts ( if not -
I can contribute it if you like )
regards,
Afaik, there's no Pico plugin available for Struts 2. So, yes,
Konstantin, if you're wil
--- Bob Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Bob,
I'd like to say that I'm codeveloper of
pico/nanocontainer.
> Type checking, performance, documentation, less
> code, generic types support,
> cleaner configuration (Guice uses a nice EDSL), no
> setter method
> requirement, up front error checki
On 2/26/07, Konstantin Priblouda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would ask why to prefer guice over
pico/nanocontainer instead ;)
Type checking, performance, documentation, less code, generic types support,
cleaner configuration (Guice uses a nice EDSL), no setter method
requirement, up front e
--- Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> I see some interesting similarities to other
> projects. Tapestry has an
> @Inject annotation, and Spring has a @Required
> annotation. I guess my
> question is why would someone prefer Guice support
> over Spring? I read
> the "Why Guic
You'll find a rough comparison to Spring in the wiki:
http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/SpringComparison
Bob
On 2/25/07, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bob,
I see some interesting similarities to other projects. Tapestry has an
@Inject annotation, and Spring has a @Required
Bob,
I see some interesting similarities to other projects. Tapestry has an
@Inject annotation, and Spring has a @Required annotation. I guess my
question is why would someone prefer Guice support over Spring? I read
the "Why Guice?" section, but I didn't see this question.
Paul
Bob Lee wro
31 matches
Mail list logo
