ooh, I guess I misunderstood the idea of DI, I thought about implementing other parsley/swiz/etc inside the sdk.
I'm all for modularity and DI within the framework. R --- Rogelio Castillo Aqueveque roge...@rogeliocastillo.com On 4/01/2012, at 6:25 PM, Roland Zwaga wrote: > 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
