Right... I envision lots of trouble integrating this into regular JEE
ecosystem. My current idea is to use built-in container only if an app
has no other container, and load Cayenne configs via an app container
otherwise, so that there's only one configuration registry.
Andrus
On Jun 3, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Malcolm Edgar wrote:
> One concern I have about introducing a 3rd party IoC container is
> class loader conflicts which may occur with including a popular IoC
> container. As Cayenne may have a dependency on version X but the
> application uses version Y.
>
> regards Malcolm Edgar
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org
> > wrote:
>> I have a good opinion about Tapestry IoC approach in general
>> (including the
>> now defunct Hivemind), and I wanted to investigate Guice.
>>
>> There's some conflicting requirements to address here - we don't
>> want to
>> write/maintain our own IoC container, yet, we don't want to embed a
>> huge
>> third-party engine, of which we'll use only a subset of features.
>> I'd like
>> it to work standalone, as well as be able to integrate (or at least
>> play
>> well) with popular IoC containers (how many containers in one app
>> is too
>> many?). Then there's a matter of modeler support, which is adverse to
>> annotations, and favors XML or other config files...
>>
>> All in all, I think assembling a core of Cayenne stack via such a
>> container
>> should open some interesting possibilities, beyond organizing current
>> configuration.
>>
>> Andrus
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Robert Zeigler wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're really considering going the 3rd party ioc route, I highly
>>> recommend T5IOC.
>>> Note that configuration is (typically) done via code in T5IOC, but
>>> I find
>>> it extremely flexible & powerful, while still being simple to use
>>> (and
>>> small! :).
>>> If not that, then guice. I'd even go for pico (though preferably
>>> not).
>>> Anything but the monster that spring has become. ;)
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 6/29:02 AM , Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modeler support will be covered by setting class name of strategy
>>>>>
>>>>> I am afraid this approach will be rather arbitrary to the end
>>>>> user, so I
>>>>> suggest we discuss it some more before putting it in Cayenne.
>>>>> Marking an
>>>>> entity to use "soft delete" based on some criteria is a clear and
>>>>> understandable feature. Setting a "delete strategy" is not, and
>>>>> will
>>>>> contribute to confusion. This is totally be ok as a backend
>>>>> extension point,
>>>>> but I will hate to see that as a general use feature.
>>>>
>>>> In this context let me mention one idea for Cayenne 3.0 + N, that
>>>> I've
>>>> been thinking about for some time. I am taking this to a separate
>>>> thread to
>>>> avoid distraction from the soft delete discussion, which has only
>>>> tangential
>>>> relevance.
>>>>
>>>> Since we already have a bunch of extension points throughout the
>>>> stack,
>>>> some exposed via the Modeler (misplaced like cache JGroups
>>>> config, or
>>>> justified like Adapter config), and some are available only via
>>>> the code, we
>>>> need a way to reign them in. The standard way of doing that is
>>>> via an IoC
>>>> container.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't want to bundle Spring with Cayenne, besides it has to
>>>> integrate with the larger app ecosystem, so we still need to
>>>> figure the
>>>> technical details. But the point is that we will be able to
>>>> provide a single
>>>> place to configure all extension points, separate from the
>>>> mapping. As
>>>> unlike the mapping those parameters are often different for the
>>>> same
>>>> project, depending on the environment where it is deployed.
>>>>
>>>> Right now this place is cayenne.xml (and it might as well stay
>>>> this way
>>>> in the future), just that unlike say Spring config files, it has
>>>> a rigid
>>>> structure and is not generic enough to handle arbitrary
>>>> extensions and
>>>> dependencies. It was ok for the early versions of Cayenne, since
>>>> there was
>>>> only a few things you could change (data source factory and
>>>> adapter I
>>>> believe). But now something more powerful and clean is desirable.
>>>>
>>>> Just some raw thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Andrus
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jun 03 2009 - 08:03:14 EDT