On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:06 -0300, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us>
wrote:
You guys keep talking about distributed configuration.
How is this related to IOC anyway?
Very easy answer: this is about configuration of services/beans, and
services/beans are the core of IoC.
The only way it is related is because its baked into tapestry IOC.
These ought to be 2 separate modules.
If, indeed there is a dire need to distributed configuration (I don't
believe there is such an integral need)
You keep saying that and it makes me think you don't know Tapestry well,
but you do. The mind boggles.
Perhaps an easier way to go is to segregate Tapestry IOC from
Distributed Configuration.
Maybe that will help with usability of Tapestry.
You're really interested in removing Tapestry-IoC of Tapestry. I see your
good intentions there even if I disagree. I suggest you something which
I'd love to see in this discussion: Tapestry is open-source, so what about
you writing a fork which ditches Tapestry-IoC and use some other IoC
instead? This way, we could discuss in terms of actual, concrete
implementations, not just conjections.
About reinventing the wheel, there is a lot of that in Tapestry.
Perhaps for historical reasons, or for whatever reasons, there is.
I used to like reinventing the wheel. I thought all other software was
shit. a lot of it is,
but now I don't mind using it if it works for 90% of my need.
Now I absolutely hate writing code that has even a smell of something
that was done before.
NIH is bad.
It is, I think everybody here agrees, so I see no point in discussing that.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
