On 10/8/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Noel J. Bergman ha scritto: > > I will go on record that I oppose a move to Spring, and have said so on > > multiple occassions. However, I do not oppose optional support for > Spring. > > > > So long as we are agreed on that, I'm +1 to on the latter. > > I think I can confirm that the support is optional. > > The spring module is a standalone module with dependencies on the other > modules, but none of our other modules will depend on the spring module. > > >> As a consequence, we would be able to release a Spring-container-based > >> Server runtime besides our regular Avalon-based. > > > > I'll start another thread on Avalon. > > > > How much does your proposed merger effect the stability of code that > > couldn't care less about Spring, e.g., the Avalon-based release? > > > > --- Noel > > AFAIK nothing changed in our "main" code in order to support the spring > integration. Bernd did a great job in writing an almost generic Avalon > container implementation based on Spring. Furthermore "his" container > supports the phoenix config.xml/assembly.xml out of the box. > > At the moment the spring deployment is still avalon-based. The only > component replaced by Bernd is Phoenix, not Avalon. > > That said the spring container will also make it simpler to integrate > non-avalon components. > > I bet the spring deployment will be very appreciated by that part of our > users that are also java developers. > > Stefano
Me too :) I think it's much simpler to work with spring, but it's just a personal taste/preferences. BR, Zsombor
