> AFAIK, 299 uses 330, so we I guess we have no option.
Yes, we need 330 anyway.
> 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?
This is a good question.. I think it could be both.
>From the spec:
------------------------------------
Package javax.enterprise.inject.spi
Description
The portable extension integration SPI.
A portable extension may integrate with the container by:
* Providing its own beans, interceptors and decorators to the container
* Injecting dependencies into its own objects using the dependency
injection service
* Providing a context implementation for a custom scope
* Augmenting or overriding the annotation-based metadata with metadata
from some other source
------------------------------------
To me this means we will be able to do all the injection stuff
(tap-ioc to cdi and cdi to tap-ioc) without much problems.
Interesting stuff is the context implementation.. I don't know if we
are able to wire tapestry's scope implementation up with this. Would
give us a Conversation Scope :-)
>> 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.
In this case please forget about what I've said :-)
> 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. ;)
Nowadays EJBs are lightweight stuff, so someone could argument they
are JavaSE as well. I think they are even smaller than the Spring
dependencies.
Piero
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
