On Tue, 21 May 2013 20:28:11 -0300, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us>
wrote:
You are missing my point.
This is not about how bad / great tapestry-ioc is.
This is about having to learn yet another DI system
before you can truly use tapestry to its full potential.
You still need to learn one anyway. And, after learning one, learning a
second one is a way smaller effort than learning the first one. I think
most Tapestry users which struggle with Tapestry-IoC actually struggle
more with IoC as a concept than its implementation in Tapestry-IoC. The
only specific feature in Tapestry-IoC which I see people really not
understand it is contribution ordering. Some people expect that A
contributed as "before:B" will result in A exactly before B (with no other
contributions between them) and not just before B. That's something that
we should emphasize in the documentation.
If it used an existing IOC, the barrier to entry would be lower.
Yes, just for the people who already use this existing IoC, and there's no
dominant one in Java right now. I guess some people use Spring, some use
EJB/CDI, and many use none. Of course, that's just a guess.
If Tapestry replaces T-IoC with something else, we would cause such a huge
backward compatibility problem that most people would abandon Tapestry
outright. That would be way more harm than good. We cannot afford that.
I'm sorry, Lance, but I don't think your suggestion will ever be
implemented, and that's not because of the "vested interests" (which don't
exist) you've mentioned earlier in the thread.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
