On 10/9/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/9/07, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let's face it - there will be nothing what could remind you of Phoenix > > in the combined code base. > > But it probably will work similar to Spring IoC-Container. Much > > flexibility, simplicity. > > Anyway, every container apart from Phoenix will be fine. > > pheonix is tightly coupled with the excaliber components we use.
it's funny you write that. "the IoC container is tightly coupled with its components" ;-) James is not dependend on Phoenix (the only part I managed to get around in James/Spring), but it is very tightly coupled indeed with excalibur components. We'd probably have to rewrite much of our code to loosen these strings. > it is > possible that excaliber may be refactored into pojos and avalon > bindings. I'd like to see that happen. Anyone already working on that or is this only in theory? Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
