The premature optimization was thinking that resolving dependencies
once, and storing them in instance variables, was going to be
appreciably faster than using static methods.
Actually, the real savings was in terms of typing those same
parameters and annotations ... and that's gone away with the
No need to concern yourself too much about it...
use static or instace as you see fit.
speed difference is neglible...
Davor Hrg
On Feb 6, 2008 9:40 PM, Hilco Wijbenga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 11:32 AM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > except for bind() which i
On Feb 6, 2008 11:32 AM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> except for bind() which is static.
Bummer! :-)
> Just part of the strategy for deferring, or avoiding, instantiation of
> the module class.
>
> In retrospect, premature optimization. If I were starting that from
> scratch, al
except for bind() which is static.
Just part of the strategy for deferring, or avoiding, instantiation of
the module class.
In retrospect, premature optimization. If I were starting that from
scratch, all the methods on a module class would be static.
What you see is that the module may be insta
On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> module methods can be both static and instance methods,
> you choose ...
>
> http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5/tapestry-ioc/module.html
Great! :-) That's very nice. I think the examples should use instance
methods then, shouldn't t
module methods can be both static and instance methods,
you choose ...
http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5/tapestry-ioc/module.html
Davor Hrg
On 2/6/08, Hilco Wijbenga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2008 11:19 PM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry
On Feb 5, 2008 11:19 PM, Davor Hrg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry/Tapestry5HowToIocOnly
> http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry/Tapestry5HowToIocAndHibernate
Oh, nice! I had not noticed these.
Is there a reason that the Module needs to have a *static*
bind(ServiceBinder)?
Kinda liking picocontainer, but tapestry-ioc is becoming my favorite
for non-embedded circumstances.
christian.
On 6-Feb-08, at 13:26 , Hilco Wijbenga wrote:
On Feb 5, 2008 2:39 PM, Jan Vissers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed T5's IoC can be used without T5 core, although IMHO you're
bet
On Feb 5, 2008 2:39 PM, Jan Vissers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed T5's IoC can be used without T5 core, although IMHO you're better
> of using Google Guice. If you're already familiar with T5 IoC, using Guice
> isn't that hard.
Yes, I noticed that T5 IoC and Guice are *very* similar. But Gui
http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry/Tapestry5HowToIocOnly
http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry/Tapestry5HowToIocAndHibernate
Davor Hrg
On Feb 5, 2008 11:00 PM, Hilco Wijbenga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering about using T5's IOC separately, i.e. in a non-T5 app
> (in fact, not even a web app).
Indeed T5's IoC can be used without T5 core, although IMHO you're better
of using Google Guice. If you're already familiar with T5 IoC, using Guice
isn't that hard.
Just my 0.02ct
-J.
> It's purposely separated out for use in non-web applications, for that
> exact intention.
>
> On Feb 5, 2008
It's purposely separated out for use in non-web applications, for that
exact intention.
On Feb 5, 2008 2:00 PM, Hilco Wijbenga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering about using T5's IOC separately, i.e. in a non-T5 app
> (in fact, not even a web app). The tapestry-ioc JAR is available
> sep
I was wondering about using T5's IOC separately, i.e. in a non-T5 app
(in fact, not even a web app). The tapestry-ioc JAR is available
separately, it's quite small, and has very few dependencies.
Do people think this is a good idea? Or is tapestry-ioc too oriented
towards a web app? Should I use S
13 matches
Mail list logo
