Re: [picocontainer-dev] Moving towards a Nano 2.x release

On May 10, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Michael Rimov wrote:

>> [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 :) )
>

I'd love Jython to be further advanced.  It's an uphill struggle for  
that team though - http://testabilityexplorer.org/jython/jython/2.1
Correspondingly they have few test-cases.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - 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?

Nope. just that the one that's closest to Pico's semantics is Waffle.

Don;t get me wrong - I'm encouraging of an even-lighter web framework :

    find AddToCartAction in page http://paulhammant.com/blog/what-brought-me-to-inversion-of-control-in-the-first-place.html

That 'boot' code is Ruby by the way.

>
>
>
>> 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?
>

How about - MyTinyPicoServlet from http://picocontainer.org/web-frameworks.html 
  evolved into something not quite so small.

Or if you abandon web.xml and Sun's notion of containment, use the  
somethng from http://svn.codehaus.org/picocontainer/java/2.x/trunk/nano/webcontainer/src/test/org/nanocontainer/webcontainer/ 
  as this is very much in PicoContainer's future.

- Paul