On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Agree on both accounts. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
