On May 22, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo wrote: > On Wed, 22 May 2013 14:18:06 -0300, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us> > wrote: > >> You guys keep talking about distributed configuration. >> How is this related to IOC anyway? > > Very easy answer: this is about configuration of services/beans, and > services/beans are the core of IoC.
Not in my view. Beans can ** use ** configuration service, it doesn't need to be tied into IoC > >> 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) > > You keep saying that and it makes me think you don't know Tapestry well, but > you do. The mind boggles. The question needs to become "what would this look like in a perfect world" I really don't see distributed configuration as a requirement in tapestry. Somehow, every other web framework, every other project and every other DI framework can do without it. > >> Perhaps an easier way to go is to segregate Tapestry IOC from Distributed >> Configuration. >> Maybe that will help with usability of Tapestry. > > You're really interested in removing Tapestry-IoC of Tapestry. I see your > good intentions there even if I disagree. I suggest you something which I'd > love to see in this discussion: Tapestry is open-source, so what about you > writing a fork which ditches Tapestry-IoC and use some other IoC instead? > This way, we could discuss in terms of actual, concrete implementations, not > just conjections. Yeah right. This has no chance of being accepted. Look at what happened when I tried to suggest revving Tapestry up to 6? > >> 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. > > It is, I think everybody here agrees, so I see no point in discussing that. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
