Am Mittwoch, den 12.07.2006, 09:45 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > Bernd Fondermann wrote: > > > > > >>Well, the intention of this whole thing is to actually _lower_ Avalon > >>dependency. That's not always easy. ;-) > > > > > > :-) > > > > > >>Currently, I'm simply working on providing means (setters) for Beans to > >>get stuff injected they need and eventually get rid of service(), > >>initialize() + configure() hell altogether. > > > > > > I'm not a particularly big fan of DI in the extremes that some take it. > > Adding N setters to M objects and the support code for inspecting who > > implements which DI methods in order to subscribe to those values, compared > > to a single injection as init(Config) doesn't make sense in most cases. > > JAMES-494 is not about going to extremes. It is focused to having > setters for all the looked up objects _only_. > > This is exactly what the word "inversion of control" is essentially all > about: > Not the object does look up it's dependency, which currently means > a. the object must know where its dependency is coming from > b. it's lookup name/key > b. object itself becomes dependend on the lookup mechanism (Avalon, > JNDI, JMock, JamesHomeBrewnRegistry) > > Instead, a managing instance (which is there anyway) provides/injects > the dependencies right away. > So it's about actually reducing dependency on the surrounding framework. > > > > > For the DNS server, I'm thinking that we might want to look at switching to > > JNDI if we can ensure that we'll bypass Java's idiotic handling and go > > straight to dnsjava. > > Maybe, but how is that related to the changes I am currently making? > > I think converting to an all-JNDI service repository becomes _much_ more > easy when we have only dumb setter around and container managed injection.
I like the setter stuff you put in there. With setters its also more easy to write junit tests. I allready use them for example in DNSRBLHandlerTest..I don't see any "real" problem with the setter methods. > > >>Should I revert all of it or only some parts? > > > > > > You need not revert anything. A veto does not mean revert. It means that > > until the veto is lifted, the code cannot be released. I am sure that we > > will come to a place that satisfies both of us before we need to worry about > > a release. > > Well, I reverted it already. As you will see, the changes I made were > trivial anyway. > And I still don't get what you are proposing us to do. I don't think the revert is a good thing .. See what i wrote above. I whould be +1 to have it in the code... Bye Norman
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
