Re: [picocontainer-dev] While looking at the streamlining of NanoWar ...

Konstantin Priblouda wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> At themoment I'm quite silent, but I follow
> the discussion closely. 
> 
> Thread local is really dangerous - webservers
> do reuse threads. I got bitten in my ass more than
> once.
> 
> 
> BTW, do we need nanowar at all?  It's kind of spring 
> way to try to provide everything and kitchen sink.
> 3-Tier container hierarchy is a good thing, and 
> WW/S2 can profit from it. 
> 
> But nanowar itself offers really poor functionality 
> compared to XW / WW / S2 - or doyou like to
> reimplement parameter handling / conversion /
> propagation,
> validation, i18n, templating etc.?
> 

You shouldn't confuse nanowar with nanoweb - which was designed more as 
a proof-of-concept spike IMO than a production web action framework.

Nanowar's main objective was to provide dependency injection for action 
components at different web scopes while leaving all the webby features 
to the frameworks themselves.

True - some more recent web action frameworks offer this out-of-the-box 
(eg Waffle) but some still don't and that's the use case the 
picocontainer web functionality is trying to fulfill.

Cheers





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

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email