On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Anyway, I think that either Spring or xbeans is just bringing some
confusion, and we could do better. If I had to vote, I would go straight
for xbeans alone, and leave spring on the side of the road...
Ok now I'm confused. I thought XBean was built on top of Spring to utilize it's custom namespace capabilities to make for terse, concise XML configuration files.
Before, we had those big nasty Spring configuration files which explicitly defined every bean without the custom tags.
I think phase I explicitly stated that one of our main efforts was to remove (#2) the configuration beans that existed and wire the components directly (#1). This did clean up a lot of crap but it introduced different problems to deal with. I also thing the configuration beans we had were shabby so a lot of the cleanup was because the config beans we used did not match well. It could be done either way.
For now I'm pooped and will accept what we have. It works well and the configuration is a lot better than it was with just pure Spring. We can work with it until we find a better way. In the end, even if we put configuration into the DIT something is going to have to do what Spring does: instantiate the objects and wire them up. Question is how do we do that in a simple and easy to manage way that's as straight forward as possible while allowing us to use our favorite container technology?
Oh Ole I'm trying to get this EMF stuff but I'm just not groking it - still need to back up and read these long emails. Thanks for not giving up on us - I know the EMF concepts you talk about are valuable especially when we really trick studio out the way I dream of.