I don't see a problem here. I am having dependencies on interface level
which should be fine. For testability I can just inject a
test-implementation of this interface. I don't see a strong coupling to
the container in my model (apart from the @Inject annotation).
Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
Are your model classes their own controllers? If you're doing what
you describe, then you're tightly coupling your model classes to the
implementation of the application. It's not forbidden or anything,
but it's often not considered best practice (though as with all good
practice, there are notable exceptions, so I don't want to judge
hastily). But I typically consider this a DI/IoC anti-pattern -
injecting the container itself or statically binding the container
(via ServiceBinder) into domain objects. Makes things hard to test,
hard to disentangle, and really really hard to port later.
Christian.
On 20-Apr-09, at 15:42 , manuel aldana wrote:
Hi,
I am injecting services to my domain model classes. For that I am
using the ServiceBinder.bind(implementationClass). This is kind of
repetitive if I want to add all classes of a certain package.
Is it somehow possible to add a set of class at once to autobuild
control, for instance by passing a package identifier?
--
manuel aldana
ald...@gmx.de
software-engineering blog: http://www.aldana-online.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
Christian Edward Gruber
e-mail: christianedwardgru...@gmail.com
weblog: http://www.geekinasuit.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
