On May 6, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Gregg D Bolinger wrote:
I am hoping that IoC still remains a developers option when using Tapestry.
Of course it is. How could it not be? You could use Spring in Tapestry 3.0 just fine, and there is nothing any Java project could do to prevent you from using Spring (is there?).
How hard will it be to use Spring instead of HiveMind if I want? Is that even possible?
You will use Spring just like you always do... and it will actually be even easier than ever before *because* of HiveMind facilitating it with custom prefix handling and other more flexible infrastructure.
BTW - I've taken a look at Wicket and while it does look like a Tapestry clone, it is coming along quite nicely. If I am forced to use HiveMind with the new Tapestry, I'll use Wicket. :)
Well, I guess we've lost you to Wicket then. "forced" is such a strong word. You were "forced" to use the built-in IoC-like stuff in Tapestry 3.0 and you didn't complain. Tapestry 4.0 provides a much more pluggable infrastructure based on HiveMind. HiveMind is integral to it, but you may not ever see it specifically except for the JAR file in WEB-INF/lib. The same configuration that you're used to in 3.0 will work in 4.0, and it will allow even more flexibility.
You won't be "forced" to use HiveMind as an IoC container for anything other than Tapestry internals (again, you may not even see it explicitly). You can use whatever you want for your business/DB integration, Spring included.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
