Stuart McCulloch wrote:
if you put it like that then yes, joining would be a mistake ;) but if this does become a standard you _will_ have customer code out there with @Inject
And there WILL be code using JDBC, and JTA, and EJB's and and and... one more junk spec won't change any of that. People will do what people will do I have found.
question then is should Qi4j have an extension to wire up such code, or do you expect this code to be wired up by Spring/Guice and then consumed by Qi4j using something like the current Spring adapter?
Wiring up such code as services, as the current adapter does, is just fine from my point of view. If anyone has suggestions on other kinds of bindings, let us know.
/Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
