Hi Matt!!! I still continue preferring Discovery over Java6 ServiceLoader just for a small reason: it allows iterating over Classes instead of Instances, that makes easier integration with DI/IoC frameworks. Indeed, with the Guice module, like shown in the link in my first email, I let instantiating the Service by Guice - that implies that Service class can have a constructor that accepts arguments (the dependencies) Anyway that's just my PoV, I'm sure there are other aspects I didn't take in consideration. I'm open to any feedback/suggestion, what's your PoV about it? Have a nice day, all the best! Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Simone Tripodi > <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi Matt, >> it sounds indeed reasonable, thanks for your feedbacks! >> Moreover what is you are suggesting is what we did in BVAL... > > Yes, exactly like bval... :) > >> Do you see any risk on splitting current Discovery project structure >> in multi module? > > I honestly am not that familiar with [discovery] per se. I have > wondered if it is still relevant in a Java 6 environment with > java.util.ServiceLoader making convenient the exploration of service > impls provided by META-INF/services/* resources. I realize > [discovery] uses other mechanisms as well, but do they continue to be > necessary? > > Matt > >> Many thanks in advance, have a nice day! >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Simone Tripodi >>> <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> Hi all guys, >>>> lately in my projects I've been frequently repeating the pattern >>>> described in [1], so, to avoid useless c'n'p I would propose to >>>> provide an already compiled module that makes easier the Google Guice >>>> integration with Discovery. >>>> Google Guice could be provided as a 'optional' or 'provided' >>>> dependency, since it wouldn't be part of the core functionalities. >>>> WDYT? Do you see any problem if I add such class? >>>> Thanks in advance for any feedback, have a nice day! >>>> Simo >>>> >>> >>> FWIW, my personal preference for integration with non-ASF code would >>> be the admittedly cumbersome multi-module project approach. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>>> [1] http://s.apache.org/Nai >>>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
