Hi Yuan, When I spent a few minutes looking at acegi I read that it can be used without Spring. Of course shortly after I read that I decided not to use it because it's documentation is circular (ie, you must first learn spring). Let me say this to you even though most know this by now - I hate acegi. That said, if you know spring already then it probably won't be too difficult to follow the the docs that show how to remove the spring dep.
chris yuan gogo wrote: > I don't understand u well, I think. > > But I'm not making FUD here if you read the mail list before. Or my English > is so bad to understand u, if so, I apologize. > > yes, security "without configuration" is impossible, by "without > configuration" I mean I hope there's something looks like "Native", if that > confused u, please blame my pool English at will. > > After sereval months using Tapestry 5, I like it very much. I hope I can > work with tapestry only, at least no spring any more. But if I use acegi, > spring jar will be included too, that makes me unconfortable because I think > tapestry-ioc is good enough for my work and I don't need any other stuff > spring provides. > > At least, if tapestry-acegi doesn't have a dependency on spring, that will > be very GOOD! > > Just my own point of view. > > Thanks! > > 2008/3/19, Christian Edward Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> I love it when someone invents new people to stage internet >> conversations. >> >> note the "just only" and other little language features that this >> troll uses in all his posts, regardless of the story. >> >> Even if I'm wrong in that supposition, this is open-source software. >> If this was a real request, and not just another attempt to slander >> Tapestry, then this person could make concrete recommendations, or >> even better, contribute code. >> >> But mostly I love the premises. In a "real web framework" security is >> "built in" and no configuration is even necessary. Bullcrap. Every >> security system needs configuration, because no system can anticipate >> all possible needs and use-cases and auto-configure for that magically >> discovered state. And why should T5 re-build what someone already >> wrote and tested. If acegi works, then why not integrate it? Ooh, >> wait! I know, I know! HLS sucks because he didn't create his own O/R >> Mapping layer! 'Cause why use Cayenne/Hibernate/JPA/TopLink when you >> can, without compelling necessity, write your own, untested system >> from scratch! >> >> Meh. >> >> >> Christian. >> >> >> On 18-Mar-08, at 23:51 , Joshua Jackson wrote: >> >> >>> I agree. I have requested this before for Tapestry to be a full web >>> framework since right now it's just only a plain web framework. >>> >>> On 3/19/08, yuan gogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Tapestry is good. >>>> But I personally think it's lack of something that should be built- >>>> in. >>>> e.gsecurity! >>>> >>>> It's right that tapestry can work well with acegisecurity, but it's >>>> not >>>> native, is it? >>>> And we programmer need time to write the configuration, >>>> debug ........ it's >>>> boring! >>>> >>>> Even there has been tapestry-acegi, but 2 projects can not be >>>> always be >>>> synchronous. What's more, tapestry-acegi can not do all that acegi >>>> does. >>>> >>>> I was asp.net user once, even I think it's not so good, but it's >>>> good for >>>> "rapid" development, because some functions like security is built- >>>> in. >>>> >>>> thanks. >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Let's show the world what we've got. >>> >>> Blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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] >> >> >> > >
