You guys keep talking about distributed configuration. How is this related to IOC anyway? The only way it is related is because its baked into tapestry IOC. These ought to be 2 separate modules. If, indeed there is a dire need to distributed configuration (I don't believe there is such an integral need) and there is nothing else on the market (I believe there is already) then there is a case for just a DC module (but not IoC)
Perhaps an easier way to go is to segregate Tapestry IOC from Distributed Configuration. Maybe that will help with usability of Tapestry. About reinventing the wheel, there is a lot of that in Tapestry. Perhaps for historical reasons, or for whatever reasons, there is. I used to like reinventing the wheel. I thought all other software was shit. a lot of it is, but now I don't mind using it if it works for 90% of my need. Now I absolutely hate writing code that has even a smell of something that was done before. NIH is bad. On May 22, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Robert Zeigler wrote: > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
