Especially with the JPA example, I would not even be sure if a "JPA_CONTAINER" is a proper "common container", at most something more general. Should there be something like it now, I guess we might better reconsider some of them.
Could be a different thread. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> wrote: > Guess it was only for common containers - and was not the purpose of > my mail BTW. > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > @rmannibucau > http://www.tomitribe.com > http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com > https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > 2015-01-08 17:58 GMT+01:00 Werner Keil <[email protected]>: > > Do we really want to define constants like > > ContainerFactory.JPA_CONTAINER > > ContainerFactory.BVAL_CONTAINER,...?? > > > > Regardless if that was a string, numeric value or enum, it'll be as > > restrictive as that ProjectStage in JSF or worse. > > Just to name a few for some Spring container you may have a > > SPRING_THIS_CONTAINER or SPRING_THAT_CONTAINER, BPM solutions had a > > BPM_CONTAINER, the possibilities are endless. I wouldn't even start > unless > > it was something as trivial as "Web Container" vs. "Enterprise Container" > > which we also find in WAR vs. EAR. Everything else is totally context- or > > application specific. > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Tresch, Anatole < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> @Anatole I don't question everything, but as the discussions are still > >> ongoing I wanted to have a clean sheet discussion about it. > >> -> Easy! I just tried to summarize the main point IMO, no bad feelings. > I > >> think we have found a good discussion culture now, and I am happy when > we > >> can keep that ;) > >> >
