Tue enough, although I must say I had no problems plugging Spring in using the Spring integration jar. Very quick and painless.
I think that use of Hivemind is required when one needs to extend or enhance or add new functionality to Tapestry itself. Certainly one could also use Hivemind as a configuration engine for other non-Tapestry services, but it isn't actually required for that purpose. I don't mind Hivemind as an IoC container, but I have found it more difficult to grok than Spring. -Scott On Sunday 25 June 2006 11:34, James Carman wrote: > That being said, Scott, it *is* much easier to "plug in" to Tapestry using > HiveMind, since Tapestry itself is wired together using HiveMind. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:41 PM > To: users@tapestry.apache.org > Subject: Re: Tapestry 3 to 4.1 to 5 > > I'm guessing you mean Hivemind, not Hibernate. > > Hibernate is an ORM that is completely independant of Tapestry. Some users > (like myself) use it and thus seek out (or develop) solutions that > integrate the two (eg. tapernate, honeycomb, cognition). You might see talk > about that on the mail;ing list but unless you intend to use Hibernate for > your database persistence then you don't need to worry about it. > > Hivemind is a configuration engine that Tapestry is built on. Whether it is > used by any other project doesn't matter. You are not constrained to use it > if you don't want - use Spring, use Picocontainer, use your home-grown > solution if you want. > > regards, > Scott > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
