struts-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Don Brown <mr...@twdata.org>
Subject Re: struts 2.2 and guice
Date Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:55:14 GMT
Late to the party, but I'm not clear why you would want to use Guice 2
instead of our own.  Is there some feature we need that Guice 2 has?
If not, we are basically sucking in a pretty significantly sized
library for no apparent reason.  I tried to use Struts 2 on a project
here, and was a bit shocked at the size of the jar nowadays...seems we
went a bit crazy with the shading.  I'd generally advise against
adding more bulk without obvious gains.

Don

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Musachy Barroso <musachy@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know about dropping Object factory, in this case it would just
> delegate to the jsr 330 implementation. But getting rid of the double
> object factory problem would be very nice.
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Rene Gielen <gielen@it-neering.net> wrote:
>> I'm a huge fan of moving to Guice 2 internally, although I'm not sure if
>> we would want to drop the ObjectFactory abstraction for plain pluggable
>> JSR330 DI - as this would imply that Struts 2.2 would not integrate any
>> more against Spring 2.x, Guice 1, Plexus, PicoContainer and what not. Do
>> we really expect every Struts2 user and his company will be able to move
>> to JSR330 compliant DI within the next months? I doubt that, and I'd
>> rather not sacrifice our DI abstraction for that reason...
>>
>> - Rene
>>
>>
>> Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>> I am reading the spec and I am rather impressed, I thought it would be
>>> a simple thing but it is really comprehensive. I doubt we will have a
>>> use case that won't be covered there.
>>>
>>> musachy
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Musachy Barroso <musachy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It is good that you brought this up, because the double object factory
>>>> is annoying and creates a lot of unexpected situations(problems with
>>>> class reloading and OSGi). Having just one container would make it
>>>> easier for everybody, users and s2 developers, if it can be pulled
>>>> off.
>>>>
>>>> This kind of change could be too big for a 2.x release I think
>>>>
>>>> musachy
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Brian Pontarelli <brian@pontarelli.com>
wrote:
>>>>> We could probably make a list and verify. I think the API should be pretty
comprehensive about a lot of those things.
>>>>>
>>>>> -bp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ah I see what you mean. yes that would be a good idea, I think that
>>>>>> would work as long as all the containers have what we need, which
I am
>>>>>> not sure if it is in the spec or not (havent read it), like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * create/inject objects and statics (duh)
>>>>>> * lookup all implementation by type
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's all I can think off the top of my head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> musachy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Brian Pontarelli <brian@pontarelli.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>> I was actually talking about expanding it out like Chris mentioned.
I don't see any reason why those who want to use the container that Struts is using shouldn't
be able to. Since the annotations and APIs will be standard across Guice and Spring with the
JSR, it seems like it would be possible to allow the application and framework to use the
same DI container, just different Injectors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The default could be Guice but allow Spring to be pluggable (or
even discoverable). As long as the internals of Struts are compliant, it should work fine.
This also provides the benefit of configuration reduction in web.xml and a more comprehensive
solution. It would also get Struts out of the business of building objects and requiring additional
configuration and plugins for different DI containers. I would guess it would clean up the
double ObjectFactory issues as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -bp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this is not related to the application itself, you can still
use any
>>>>>>>> IoC you want. This is for the IoC that is used internally
to wire
>>>>>>>> struts internals together, which at the moment is an old
version of
>>>>>>>> guice which is in xwork.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Chris Pratt <thechrispratt@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as I can still
swap in my trusty
>>>>>>>>> Spring IoC container, I can't see my team moving away
from it any time soon,
>>>>>>>>> but I still want to try to stay as current as possible
on Struts.
>>>>>>>>>  (*Chris*)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Brian Pontarelli <brian@pontarelli.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They'll be part of the Guice distribution and under
ASLv2 since Guice uses
>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The real question is how to setup the Injector's.
I tend to think this
>>>>>>>>>> layout would be best:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>        Base
>>>>>>>>>>            |
>>>>>>>>>>            |
>>>>>>>>>>   _________
>>>>>>>>>>   |                  |
>>>>>>>>>>   |                  |
>>>>>>>>>> Struts        App
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Base injector will contain the JEE objects (request,
response, etc.)
>>>>>>>>>> and any Struts objects that can be used by the application.
The Struts
>>>>>>>>>> injector will contain all of the private objects
that should not be
>>>>>>>>>> accessible to the application. The App injector will
contain all the
>>>>>>>>>> application objects like Actions and such.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -bp
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Musachy Barroso wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> good point Brian, that has came up also. I have
a couple of concerns
>>>>>>>>>>> about it, like what is the status of the jsr
and will the API
>>>>>>>>>>> (annotations) will be under a decent (read ASF
compatible license)
>>>>>>>>>>> license and in maven central? which is usually
a pain point when it
>>>>>>>>>>> comes to Sun APIs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> musachy
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Brian Pontarelli
<brian@pontarelli.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd suggest using Guice trunk and the JSR
annotations rather than the
>>>>>>>>>> Guice annotations. I'd also make the injector pluggable
so that people can
>>>>>>>>>> plug in Spring/Guice/etc easily.
>>>>>>>>>>>> -bp
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Musachy Barroso
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have talked to a couple of people before
and everyone seems to agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that using guice instead of our internal
IoC container (guice pre 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think), would be a good idea. I don't
have any experience with guice
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.0, but looking at the docs it seems
like porting our stuff would not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be that hard. Less code to maintain,
and we get more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> features/improvements. If we go with
this idea, guice would be shaded
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into xwork to avoid classpath conflicts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> musachy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@struts.apache.org


Mime
View raw message