Unfortunately, no other IOC system (that I've seen) offers something quite like
T5-IOC's distributed configuration. The closest is perhaps
MultiBinding/MapBinding in Guice
(http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/Multibindings). But any similar
Guice/Spring solutions I've seen to date just
On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:07:19 -0300, Robert Zeigler
robert.zeig...@roxanemy.com wrote:
Unfortunately, no other IOC system (that I've seen) offers something
quite like T5-IOC's distributed configuration. The closest is perhaps
MultiBinding/MapBinding in Guice
You guys keep talking about distributed configuration.
How is this related to IOC anyway?
The only way it is related is because its baked into tapestry IOC.
These ought to be 2 separate modules.
If, indeed there is a dire need to distributed configuration (I don't believe
there is such an
On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:06 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
You guys keep talking about distributed configuration.
How is this related to IOC anyway?
Very easy answer: this is about configuration of services/beans, and
services/beans are the core of IoC.
The only way
On May 22, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:06 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
You guys keep talking about distributed configuration.
How is this related to IOC anyway?
Very easy answer: this is about configuration of
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:00:41 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
You're really interested in removing Tapestry-IoC of Tapestry. I see
your good intentions there even if I disagree. I suggest you something
which I'd love to see in this discussion: Tapestry is open-source, so
On May 22, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 15:00:41 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
You're really interested in removing Tapestry-IoC of Tapestry. I see your
good intentions there even if I disagree. I suggest you something
On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:04 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
I don't see myself getting paid for this :) As much as I would love to,
I cannot afford this :)
Same for me (except I don't see the need for replacing Tapestry-IoC, but
sometimes we write code just because
Perhaps time would be better spent decoupling dynamic configuration from IOC,
at least as a first step.
On May 22, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2013 16:30:04 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
I don't see myself getting paid for this
I love Tapestry IOC. When used in a very basic way, it's almost
indistinguishable from Guice. Actually it's less intrusive since you don't
need annotations for injection.
Tapestry is very powerful when you do more advanced stuff, and I just love
that the power's there even though I don't use it
Couldn't agree more with Inge
I have worked with tapestry-Guice tapestry-Spring IOC and I think one of the
merits of Tapestry IOC is how easily you can integrate it with any IOC.
Any web framework needs some build-in IOC, It may be a couple of Java classes
but it is there. In Tapestry, we
You are missing my point.
This is not about how bad / great tapestry-ioc is.
This is about having to learn yet another DI system
before you can truly use tapestry to its full potential.
If it used an existing IOC, the barrier to entry would be lower.
On May 21, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Inge Solvoll
Well, yes, your screwdriver is great I guess, but I already know how to
use a hammer.
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.uswrote:
You are missing my point.
This is not about how bad / great tapestry-ioc is.
This is about having to learn yet another DI system
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:28:11 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
You are missing my point.
This is not about how bad / great tapestry-ioc is.
This is about having to learn yet another DI system
before you can truly use tapestry to its full potential.
You still need to learn
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
thiag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:28:11 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
If Tapestry replaces T-IoC with something else, we would cause such a huge
backward compatibility problem that most people
On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:09:29 -0300, Kalle Korhonen
kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
Lance has not participated in this thread even with a single message.
Thanks for correcting me, Kalle! I was talking about Lenny, not Lance.
Sorry, Lance! Damn similar names . . . :P
--
Thiago H. de
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo
thiag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 23:09:29 -0300, Kalle Korhonen
kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com wrote:
Lance has not participated in this thread even with a single message.
Thanks for correcting me, Kalle! I was
And I forgot another huge reason for not replacing Tapestry-IoC in
Tapestry: backward compatibility. Unfortunately, we just can't break
compatibility in such a large way. Many people still void Tapestry due to
its past history of completely non-backward compatible changes and the
Tapestry
I don't think neither I nor hantsy have any realistic action items that will
possibly be implemented,
simply because the maintainers have too much stake in the status quo.
There is nothing wrong with that. It is legitimate to protect your investment,
especially if you making a living off of it.
Starting new topic... nothing relating to tapestry-CDI announcement...
I am sure you grasp the technology just fine.
But this is a bit changing the topic.
I am talking about IOC specifically.
You are mentioning distributed configuration.
There are plenty of ways to implement what needs to be
On Wed, 15 May 2013 17:30:17 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
using the CDI spec. I am not even sure that what you are calling
Distributed Configuration is even needed for the Web Framework.
Just take a look at Tapestry (the web framework) itself. Look at how a new
I agree that distributed configuration is great.
But, it's not equivalent to tapestry-ioc. There are lots of ready-made
solutions for distributed configurations already.
You can also easily build one on top of ready-made CDI implementation, if you
really want to (I don't think there is a need)
On Wed, 15 May 2013 18:57:55 -0300, Lenny Primak lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us
wrote:
I agree that distributed configuration is great.
But, it's not equivalent to tapestry-ioc.
Agreed.
There are lots of ready-made solutions for distributed configurations
already.
You can also easily build one
As I said in another thread, you're suggesting replacing Tapestry-IoC
with CDI. If that was done, people would still learn one IoC framework
in order to learn Tapestry. CDI has a broader reach (in termos of
concepts and features) than T-IoC. Not much people use CDI now (I may
be wrong, of
I'm not getting what are you trying to say. Is it lets replace
tapestry-ioc with some other ioc?
Or lets implement proper CDI support?
If you are implying that this is all so important, why isn't every
project on the planet using Tapestry-IOC?
I would be very happy using the Web Framework
25 matches
Mail list logo
