I'm keeping the package names seperate, to facilitate splitting out Tapestry IoC into a standalone project, ala HiveMind. Right now that is not a priority.
The way I've been layout out the Tapestry IoC APIs, it should be possible to create a kind of bridge RegistryBuilder that can read HiveModule XML and make those appear (largely) like native Tapestry IoC modules and services. There's a bunch of things that don't line up however: Decorators (service interceptor factories in HiveMind) can now match (i.e., target) multiple services. This makes them more like AspectJ pointcuts. Configurations in HiveMind are standalone. In Tapestry IoC each service *may* have *one* configuration, as an unordered collection, an ordered list, or a map. This turns out to be more than sufficient (you can always create a service that exists to vend out its configuration, and thus simulate multiple configurations per service). Object ordering is more robust in Tapestry IoC: http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5/ioc/order.html Tapestry IoC doesn't yet have a number of HiveMind features: - Registry shutdown - Pooled service lifecycle model (just "perthread") - Object providers ( http://jakarta.apache.org/hivemind/hivemind/ObjectProviders.html ) - Symbols Many features of HiveMind won't be needed in Tapestry IoC as they can be more easily accomplished in Java code. Thus "instance:" or "class:" object provider prefixes are useless. On 7/30/06, Benjamin Tomasini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have been using HiveMind now for quite a while and have come to depend on it quite heavily on many projects - some web apps, some not. It's features have very much improved the quality and modularity of my code. What would prevent a user from employing Tapestry IoC as a general purpose container like HiveMind? Would there be any benefit to building one monolithic Tapestry jar and a set of segmented jars (something Spring does) for more targeted use? Or why not keep Tapestry a single project with sub-modules for IoC and the Web framework? Alternatively, what about merging Tapestry IoC and HiveMind at some later date? It could remain as HiveMind, or it could take on the Tapestry IoC name. The conversations on this list indicate that key principals of both projects intend to keep some degree of parity anyway. Ben --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Howard M. Lewis Ship TWD Consulting, Inc. Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry Creator, Apache HiveMind Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support and project work. http://howardlewisship.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
