true, we may not need a new framework to do DI in Flex, there are plenty of DI frameworks.
But what we DO need in the core Flex classes is the ability to inject dependencies directly into the classes instead of having the classes create their dependencies themselves (in worst case statically or inside private methods). So in essence, we'll e.g. need setters to inject LayoutManagers, ResourceManagers, WhatNotManagers etc. (and yes, these could also be typed against a common interface ;-) Dirk. 2012/1/4 Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque <roge...@rogeliocastillo.com> > I agree on modularity, but I reckon dependency injection is a totally > different thing which has lots of very good libs out there... not sure if > that should be part of the SDK. > > I believe that the focus should be on splitting the SDK into several > modules/libs, then think on interface design. > > R > > --- > Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque > roge...@rogeliocastillo.com > > > > > On 4/01/2012, at 6:11 PM, João Saleiro wrote: > > > +1 > > > > I agree with reducing strong-coupled dependencies as the first priority. > > > > I would also complement the use of interfaces with: > > > > - using dependency injection when possible > > - splitting the SDK into several libraries > > - support and advocate the use of Maven for managing dependencies (or > something similar) > > > > > > João Saleiro > > > > On 04-01-2012 21:03, Michael Schmalle wrote: > >> Continuing the thread from "Committer duties and information" > >> > >> about setting interface priority to #1 in the future development fo > Flex. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >
