That dependency was a hang over form an earlier round of refactoring, it isn't required and i've removed it now.
...ant On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Raymond Feng <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm looking to the implementation-spring module. There are a few things that > confuse me: > > 1) Why does implementation-spring depend on the > implementation-spring-runtime. Shouldn't it be reversed? > 2) The implementation provider for Spring is packaged in > implementation-spring which should be used to contain the model and > processor code. > > I would appreciate some clarifications. > > Thanks, > Raymond > From: Ramkumar R > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:34 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [2.x] Porting Spring Modules into 2.x > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Mike Edwards > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Luciano, >> >> The Spring implementation-xml module is one that I propose we get rid of. >> It is one of my "suspicious" ones - it contains a single class only. This >> seems very wasteful, as it does not really offer much in the way of >> "pluggability". Putting it into the main implementation-spring module >> really does simplify things in this case. >> >> It is notable that the dependencies of the module are all already >> contained in the dependencies of implementation-spring, so this will not >> increase coupling. >> >> >> Yours, Mike. > > Another round of re-factoring with spring module. > > 1. Removed the implementation-spring-xml module and moved that one class in > implementation-spring module. > 2. Moved the classes in > org.apache.tuscany.sca.implementation.spring.processor package to > implementation-spring-runtime module. > 3. Changed the SpringImplementation.java to implement ComponentPreProcessor. > > -- > Thanks & Regards, > Ramkumar Ramalingam >
