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
