indeed it is. Is it as funny to you as it is to me that the OP has moved on and you and I are still quibbling over minor points of his design?
-Mike On 3/19/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I didn't say that's the way you should do it, necessarily. I just said that > it's a cool feature. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Snare [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:29 PM > To: Tapestry users > Subject: Re: POJO dependency injection (with interface) into TAP4 > application > > Seems to me that that imposes certain arbitrary restrictions on how > you name and package your future DAOs. > > What you're going for is the ability to replace functionality as > needed with minimal cost. Again, if this is released as a library and > someone wants to provide their own, what should they do? > > Taken to it's logical conclusion, this has the entire classname > replaced with ${dao.person.impl} which needs to be replaced. That > would appear to defeat the entire purpose since, for the same effort, > you could just override the default implementation with your own > (either piecemeal or wholesale, depending on whether you expose the > provider or individual DAOs) > > -Mike > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
