I think we need to get the project for external integrations going. I got a note from Rod Johnson about this too, and I think it would be a great idea to have integrations with Spring and Picocontainer, but these need to be in a separate project. We're explicitly limiting dependencies in Xwork / WebWork as much as possible.
Jason > -----Original Message----- > From: Rob Rudin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 9:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Is This a Bad Use of IoC? > > > Not to sound like a broken record, but I think Spring does a > nice job of handling Hibernate. It provides a Hibernate > template to handle the Hibernate plumbing and nice support > for configuring a SessionFactory. Should be very easy to hook > this into WW2's IoC. > > Rob > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew E. Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 8:38 PM > Subject: [OS-webwork] Is This a Bad Use of IoC? > > > > I think I may be going Inversion of Control mad lately and > need some > > help sorting out if what I am doing is just wrong. I am building a > > new persistence manager where the core manager is based upon > > hibernate. The hibernate manager needs three different > providers- one > > for Configuration, one for SessionFactory, and one for > Sessions. Each > > of these providers (Conf, SF, and Session) can have different > > implementations. For example, the default Session provider always > > returns a new session; however, there is also a ThreadLocal version > > which returns the same session for the entire thread. > > > > The question I have is how do I specify and load these at runtime? > > The most obvious answer is to have a custom xml file that specifies > > which provider fulfills each role. I could write (and already have > > done so) a loader to read an XML file and configure the > system. But, > > instead of having this in a separate file, would it be a complete > > bastardization of the intention of IoC (XWork edition) to use it to > > automatically configure the providers? > > > > Why does this seem bad? Because the primary intention of IoC is to > > wire business components whereas these providers will > probably never > > be used outside the real component, the persistence > manager. Instead, > > it seems like I am too lazy to write a loader to configure > the system. > > > > > > Cheers, > > matthew > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET > sites including > > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > > > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet > _072303_01/01 > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites > including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are > available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or > Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet _072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
