I agree with John Krasnay I am new to wicket( 2 months old) but I find @SpringBean very easy to use and it minimizes the spring-context concern while developing the application.
and I think avoiding annotations is something you wont be able to do for long.. tawus On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:36 PM, John Krasnay <j...@krasnay.ca> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 04:45:26PM +0000, Christian Helmbold wrote: >> I've read http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/spring.html and the corresponding >> section in "Wicket in Action" about the troubles with serialization of >> injected services. >> >> "Dependencies often have references to other dependencies in the >> container, and so if one is serialized it will probably serialize a few >> others and can possibly cascade to serializing the entire container." >> (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/spring.html) >> >> As >> far as I understand this is not a dependency injection specific issue. >> In either case all referenced objects are serialized recursively. So I >> think I have to take care about serialization not only when using >> Spring or Guice. >> >> Wouldn't it be sufficient to use a static member to hold a reference to a >> service? i.e. >> >> public class SomeWicketComponent{ >> private static MyService service; >> // ... >> } >> > > How would you intialize these? Would you have a static getter, and force > yourself to remember to always use it? Or would you have a static setter > and centralize the initialization code somewhere else? Either way sounds > ugly to me. > >> Remains >> the problem with the injection. To solve this the mentioned website >> suggests several ways. The Application Object Approach seems to be most >> wicket like to me. But as mentioned there it is very verbose. Why not >> simply insert a method to deliver requested beans into the Application >> class? It would look like this: >> >> class MyApplication extends WebApplication { >> private ApplicationContext ctx = new ClassPathXmlContext("context.xml"); >> // Spring context >> public Object getBean(String beanName){ >> return ctx.getBean(beanName); >> } >> } >> >> Is >> anything wrong with it? > > The problem is you'll end up with code like this sprinkled throughout > your app: > > MyService svc = (MyService) MyApp.getBean("myService"); > > Let's see, where to start... > > - it's ugly > - the cast and the bean name can fail in a way that is only detectable > at runtime > - it ties all your components to your application class > - it's difficult to test, since you need to mock up a MyApp instance for > your component to work > >> I find it much more elegant than to store a >> reference for each bean in in the application class as suggested on >> http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/spring.html#Spring-ApplicationObjectApproach. >> > > I don't find either very elegant. > >> Maybe the annotation-based approach is a bit more elegant but I don't like >> annotations much. >> > > What don't you like about them? Annotations are a tool just like any > other part of the language. A carpenter doesn't use a brick because he > "doesn't like hammers much." > >> It >> seems to me, that dependency injection (DI) and wicket is not a dream >> team. Do you use DI with Wicket or do you use the "classic" approach >> like Wicket itself does? >> > > I've been very happy with @SpringBean so far. > > jk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
