Re: [picocontainer-dev] Nano2 (baby steps - work in progress) 'config' based entries in component tree.

I agree that it could be subject to taste.

It is just as viable for a composition script to pull config vars from:

   * xml
   * a properties file
   * an #include concept for Groovy/JRuby

- Paul


On May 16, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Michael Rimov wrote:

>> I prefer config (in addition to component) as it reminds us that
>> Inversion of Control is three things - dependency, lifecycle and
>> configuration.
>
> Agreed.
>
> That said, however,
>
> I would say that PicoContainer and the current building methods  
> only truly
> handles Dependency Injection. (Yes, we have lifecycle, but I don't  
> think
> anybody has had a real revelation of how to do it as elegantly as  
> we have
> done CDI)
>
> I personally have problems with putting configuration into the  
> build script.
> For example: I don't want admins mucking with the composition of a
> complicated program just to change a database connection password!
>
> To me, I explicitly put all configuration in a separate location  
> and apply
> that configuration after that object is constructed.  (Closest  
> thing in Pico
> is BeanSetter CA)
>
> But the real point here is that I let ComponentAdapters handle the
> configuration, not the composition script, and I think we're  
> walking down
> the wrong path by including it.
>
> 							-Mike
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
>
>     http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email