----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregg D Bolinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tapestry users" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Components to fry JSF and all other frameworks
> I am hoping that IoC still remains a developers option when using > Tapestry. How hard will it be to use Spring instead of HiveMind if I > want? Is that even possible? Strangely, how come I never hear anyone complaining to Rod Johnson for how they want to use Spring MVC as web layer *but* without having Spring IoC container around, because they only want HiveMind for that, not both ? Rod would probably be puzzled by this strange need no less then Howard.... Let me get this straight because I heard this unreasonable complaint before about having 2 IoC containers - There is almost always some kind of container inside some project! Tapestry 3.0 has it also - in a form of .application file, Extensions, EngineServices etc... It is the way hw Tapestry 3.0 is built. It was blended with whole framework so you never considered it as something separated, with some special name. The only difference now with Tapestry 4.0 is that this container is separated as new project (HiveMind), and it's something that Tapestry is built on, same as before, just with difference of being separate project, with a name. You should not care how Tapestry is built, you should pick whatever you want in your project. If it's Spring, so be it. Use it as you always did. The only thing desirable for IoC frameworks is that they know how to inject dependencies from one to another, so that wiring of dependencies would be outside of code, and Tapestry 4.0 offers that in a form of "inject" tag. -Vjeran -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 4.5.2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
