Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 43311 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2006 10:34:29 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2006 10:34:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 69832 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2006 10:34:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 69618 invoked by uid 500); 4 Jan 2006 10:34:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 69514 invoked by uid 99); 4 Jan 2006 10:34:09 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-10.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO [127.0.0.1]) (209.237.227.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:34:09 -0800 Message-ID: <43BBA50D.80007@apache.org> Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 11:35:57 +0100 From: Carsten Ziegeler User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [RT] Simplifying component handling References: <43B9164F.5080201@apache.org> <43B95C08.8010602@dslextreme.com> <7557e99f0601020933xe119a58j588921935798ba63@mail.gmail.com> <43BA239A.5000200@apache.org> <43BAABF4.6030902@reverycodes.com> In-Reply-To: <43BAABF4.6030902@reverycodes.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > >>So I'm coming back to my idea, is anyone against adding constructor >>injection to ECM++ or at least make it pluggable so I can add it for my >>own projects? The change adds only a feature while maintaining 100% >>compatibility. > > > Why not setter injection? > Because I don't need it :) As you have seen in this thread there are many arguments about a "confusing" mechanism or "hack" or whatever. My opinion is that while constructor injection is a clean approach, setter injection might really be more confusion. But as I already said, if someone wants to add setter injection as well, I'm not against it. Carsten -- Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.s-und-n.de http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/