I've been giving some thought towards simplifying Tapestry 5 IOC.
I'm beginning to question the value of having a segmented namespace. Let me clarify; I think there are situations, if and when you have large (dozens) of modules, where a segmented namespace is valuable. However, in the typical case (a normal Tapestry application with a component library or two) it is unlikely that naming will get that complicated, and having simple naming is easier to understand. This would eliminate the @Id annotation on module builders (they wouldn't need IDs at all). I believe the @Contribute annotation would also go (you would always be able to identify the service to contribute to directly from the method name). There's a lot of other logic, related to things like ordering, decorating, and service matching (GlobMatcher) as well that would simplify. -- 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]
