Robin Helgelin wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Otho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> One thing which bothered me a couple of times already on this list. With the >> neat tapestry-spring integration, why don't you just use Spring to configure >> Spring services? The little xml used for configuring acegi is in my personal >> view more readable than the contributions in a service class and it got even >> less with 2.0. And you don't need any changes to Tapestry itself. >> > > One of the ideas of tapestry5-acegi is that it should be as > transparent to spring as possible, using spring xml makes the user > need to learn spring if he wants to make changes, currently this isn't > the case. > I have to argue that point. Up until a week or so ago I had never used spring and had avoided using it for a long time. I knew of acegi and was looking for a canned authorization library, so I was pleased to find tapestry-hibernate. Unfortunately it assumes you know acegi, which I don't, and acegi in turn assumes you know spring, which I didn't. If one is to use acegi they are expected to know spring, so I think avoiding it is somewhat moot (unless the module includes code to remove the spring deps). > On the other hand, if there's a patch available, I don't see a problem > to change it :) > >
-- http://thegodcode.net
