On 20 Apr 2009, at 22:48, Pete Muir wrote:
On 20 Apr 2009, at 22:42, Dan Allen wrote:
>
>
> I really see this as a module. It's no different than our current
> spring (and now guice) integration in that sense. We could have an
> "ioc" common module and then have modules that build on that. But
> in general it is IoC (or really DI) related.
Actually, it's totally different. We will initially build a bridge
(like the spring/guice stuff), but what Shane is talking about is the
"emulation layer" for Seam legacy code that allows you to run Seam2
code natively on Seam3.
>
>
> IOC was a bad name for that module originally, lets not repeat that
> mistake.
>
> What about DI, or is that too general? I guess the first question
> to answer is what is the nature of these integrations. The JBoss AS
> team has probably thought about this terminology so we should see
> what they have to say about the name. Obviously, each integration
> would be named after the framework, but if there were shared code
> what would it be called? Not a question we have to answer right away.
Huh? What has DI/IOC got to do with it? These modules don't provide
DI, they provide integrations with other frameworks. Anyway, this
stuff belongs in Web Beans, not Seam.
--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete