i get it but why i said it is i like the fact you can't use any xml file to change injections. However sometimes that's cool (change an address, a port...) so i'd prefer to be able to say "ok let's change injection from config but do it only where i said it was allowed".
- Romain 2012/7/7 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Hmm, nope not really. > > The idea is to take an arbitrary 3rd party source - most probably some > legacy project - and add the xml config from 'outside' to make those > classes usable. > Requiring some annotation on them would trash this imo. > > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: > > Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 11:33 PM > > Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config) > > > > just an idea not directly linked: could be nice to force an object > > configurable through XML to be declared as this (@Configurable) > > > > - Romain > > > > > > 2012/7/7 Anil Saldhana <[email protected]> > > > >> A XML based configuration for an object structure IMO is important when > >> you do not want to add anything to the source of the object structure. > >> > >> This is the spring core dependency injection model that users may want > >> from Deltaspike. > >> > >> I will definitely use it. > >> > >> On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Hmm just another idea: > >> > > >> > If we do an own config module, we could provide the core + different > >> bindings: > >> > > >> > 1. the 'old' CDI spec XML config > >> > 2. a Spring style XML config > >> > > >> > 3. ... > >> > > >> > LieGrue, > >> > strub > >> > > >> > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > >> >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Cc: > >> >> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 10:14 PM > >> >> Subject: Re: v0.4-incubating adding Seam Config (xml config) > >> >> > >> >> +0 since i'm not sure XML is really CDI spirit...and it needs > > to be > >> >> consistent with already existing config (global alternatives etc) > > which > >> can > >> >> be a bit complicated > >> >> > >> >> - Romain > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2012/7/6 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> >>> i'm not sure if we should start with it for v0.4, however, > > if it gets > >> >> an > >> >>> own (optional) module: +0 > >> >>> > >> >>> regards, > >> >>> gerhard > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> 2012/7/6 Jason Porter <[email protected]> > >> >>> > >> >>>> It's been a 10 on our list for awhile but we > > haven't done it > >> >> yet. > >> >>> Thoughts > >> >>>> on adding it to v0.4? It would be a straight port from > > what we have in > >> >>> Seam > >> >>>> 3 with package name changes. It's currently the only > >> >> implementation in > >> >>>> existence (that we know of) of the older xml config that > > was to be > >> >> part > >> >>> of > >> >>>> spec but was later pulled. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> Jason Porter > >> >>>> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com > >> >>>> http://twitter.com/lightguardjp > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Software Engineer > >> >>>> Open Source Advocate > >> >>>> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception > > Handling > >> >>>> > >> >>>> PGP key id: 926CCFF5 > >> >>>> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >
