Unfortunately, no other IOC system (that I've seen) offers something quite like T5-IOC's "distributed configuration". The closest is perhaps MultiBinding/MapBinding in Guice (http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/Multibindings). But any similar Guice/Spring solutions I've seen to date just don't provide the flexibility and extensibility you get with "distributed configuration", and those concepts are critical for Tapestry.
Robert On May 21, 2013, at 5/216:28 PM , Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us> wrote: > You are missing my point. > This is not about how bad / great tapestry-ioc is. > This is about having to learn yet another DI system > before you can truly use tapestry to its full potential. > If it used an existing IOC, the barrier to entry would be lower. > > On May 21, 2013, at 6:01 AM, Inge Solvoll wrote: > >> I love Tapestry IOC. When used in a very basic way, it's almost >> indistinguishable from Guice. Actually it's less intrusive since you don't >> need annotations for injection. >> >> Tapestry is very powerful when you do more advanced stuff, and I just love >> that the power's there even though I don't use it that much. >> >> "Why doesn't everyone use X if it's so great?" >> "Why don't you use the standard?" >> >> These questions wrongly assume that standards are always a good thing, and >> that standards are of high quality. And that the companies funding these >> standards are acting in your best interest, not in their own :) >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
