RE: [picocontainer-dev] Moving towards a Nano 2.x release
"Michael Rimov" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.picocontainer.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | Centerline Computers, Inc |
| Message-ID | <03cf01c8b2f0$56a15d10$03e41730$@com> |
> [email protected] > I'm all for deleting the Jython bindings. Its not easy to work with at > all. Ok, but playing opposite advocate here, since you mentioned that thanks to Google python is making a resurgence, wouldn't it be better to try to get something going here? (Again, I haven't been able to use Jython, so I'm just talking theoretically here :) ) > >> A similar argument applies to some other libraries. Eg: > >> > >> - do we want to continue support for struts1 and webwork* now that t > >> they've merged into struts2? > > > > I'm for trimming the codebase, although I think recently there was > > somebody > > looking to integrate webwork on the mailing lists (< 6 months ago > > IIRC?) > > Well both the WebWork and the Struts team would suggest that their > best practice would be to move to Struts2. Ok, understood. > > > > > > >> - does it makes sense to support nanoweb which was at best a proof of > >> concept? there are a number of web frameworks out there which > >> support > >> dependency injection. > > > > True, but NanoWeb could live on as an example on how to use > > NanoWAR. (I > > remember going over it to figure things out, but I never used it > > personally.) > > > > I would actually like to see a little lighter weight version of a > > NanoWeb > > component living on within NanoWAR. Specifically have a Servlet and > > a Filter > > that delegate all requests to a Servlet (or Filter) that has been > > instantiated > > via DI. <snip> <snip> > > eventually inline it through optimization if needed). > > Well work towards that if you like dude. > > I'm thinking that Waffle is the direction I'd like to head in as the > approved web-framework for Pico. Ok, are you suggesting that we promote waffle as the official and deprecate everything else? > and maybe we could beef up the web-frameworks.html page with a "roll > your own" section ? That's a bit tougher since every single framework out there has a different way of integrating with a DI container. Do you have an idea of how this would look like? -Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email