Em Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:53:59 -0200, Piero Sartini <[email protected]>
escreveu:
330 is not much more than standardized DI annotations. It is a good
starting point, but I am not sure if we gain a lot from it.
We gain a lot actually: a non EJB object can be used as a bean in most IoC
containers without any change.
AFAIK, 299 uses 330, so we I guess we have no option.
299 is more interesting.. it defines a SPI for developing portable
extensions to JavaEE. If I am right, this could be the integration
point with tapestry-ioc.
It's more interesting but it's more to implement. ;)
There's a distinction to be done here: Tapestry-IoC integrates with JSR
299 implementations or Tapestry-IoC implementing 299?
Yes - but in case JSR-299 gives us spring for free, maybe we don't
need to maintain two seperate modules.
It seems to me that currently Spring supports 330 but not 299 yet.
As far as I know, JSR-299 as well as 330 can be used outside of any
container.
330 I'm sure, not 100% sure about 299.
After all, JavaEE is just a bunch of JSRs bundled together.. but if
you prefer you may put together everything on top of JavaSE as well.
I'm making a distinction between SE and EE because 330 and 303, for
example, don't need an EJB implementation to run. That's why I don't refer
to them as part of Java EE. ;)
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer,
and instructor
Owner, software architect and developer, Ars Machina Tecnologia da
Informação Ltda.
http://www.arsmachina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
