I think Michael Labriola has some ideas about modularity and DI within the framework, his idea was definitely NOT to have Flex feature an IoC container like Swiz/SpringAS/SmartyPants etc. The DI features would be focused on framework modularity, not on *application* frameworks.
On 4 January 2012 22:17, Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque < roge...@rogeliocastillo.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > >> > > -- regards, Roland -- Roland Zwaga Senior Consultant | Stack & Heap BVBA +32 (0)486 16 12 62 | rol...@stackandheap.com | http://www.stackandheap.com
