Re: [picocontainer-dev] Default XML for Nano 2?

Hi Mike,

Michael Rimov wrote:
> I seem to recall a conversation with Mauro a while back that said that the
> default XML container builder might be better off using XStream container
> builder as the default....

Historically, the reason why the XML container builder does not use 
XStream as the default ComponentInstanceFactory was to limit the number 
of mandatory dependencies (ie the default BeanComponentInstanceFactory 
does not require any additional dependency).

IMO this is less important of an issue now that we've moved to Maven 2 
and use transitive dependencies.

I always use XStreamComponentInstanceFactory with the XMLContainerBuilder.

> I wanted to ask.... is that something that you guys plan on doing for Nano 2?
> (I don't normally use the XML Container Builder, but while testing, I noticed
> some behavior differences between the groovy container builder and the XML
> container builder and wanted to know what the plans were for XML Container
> Builder before I dove into it.)

As Paul has mentioned before, the design of Nano's 
ScriptedContainerBuilder needs reviewing as we move to Apache.  Ideas 
are welcome :-)

IMO we need to support XML, but we need to accept that it will not offer 
the same functionality of say Groovy or other dynamic languages.

It just needs to be documented what the limitations of its use are.

Cheers


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

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email