ooh, I guess I misunderstood the idea of DI, I thought about implementing other parsley/swiz/etc
inside the sdk.
I'm all for modularity and DI within the framework.
R
---
Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque
rogelio@rogeliocastillo.com
On 4/01/2012, at 6:25 PM, Roland Zwaga wrote:
> I think Michael Labriola has some ideas about modularity and DI within the
> framework, his idea was definitely NOT to have Flex feature an IoC
> container like Swiz/SpringAS/SmartyPants etc.
> The DI features would be focused on framework modularity, not on
> *application* frameworks.
>
> On 4 January 2012 22:17, Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque <
> rogelio@rogeliocastillo.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree on modularity, but I reckon dependency injection is a totally
>> different thing which has lots of very good libs out there... not sure if
>> that should be part of the SDK.
>>
>> I believe that the focus should be on splitting the SDK into several
>> modules/libs, then think on interface design.
>>
>> R
>>
>> ---
>> Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque
>> rogelio@rogeliocastillo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/01/2012, at 6:11 PM, João Saleiro wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> I agree with reducing strong-coupled dependencies as the first priority.
>>>
>>> I would also complement the use of interfaces with:
>>>
>>> - using dependency injection when possible
>>> - splitting the SDK into several libraries
>>> - support and advocate the use of Maven for managing dependencies (or
>> something similar)
>>>
>>>
>>> João Saleiro
>>>
>>> On 04-01-2012 21:03, Michael Schmalle wrote:
>>>> Continuing the thread from "Committer duties and information"
>>>>
>>>> about setting interface priority to #1 in the future development fo
>> Flex.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> regards,
> Roland
>
> --
> Roland Zwaga
> Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA
>
> +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | roland@stackandheap.com | http://www.stackandheap.com
|