On 10/10/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bernd Fondermann ha scritto: > > On 10/9/07, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 10/9/07, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Let's face it - there will be nothing what could remind you of Phoenix > >>> in the combined code base. > >>> But it probably will work similar to Spring IoC-Container. Much > >>> flexibility, simplicity. > >>> Anyway, every container apart from Phoenix will be fine. > >> pheonix is tightly coupled with the excaliber components we use. > > > > it's funny you write that. "the IoC container is tightly coupled with > > its components" ;-) > > James is not dependend on Phoenix (the only part I managed to get > > around in James/Spring), but it is very tightly coupled indeed with > > excalibur components. We'd probably have to rewrite much of our code > > to loosen these strings.
> I don't agree with Robert and you about Phoenix being tightly coupled > with components we use. > There is nothing, but Avalon interfaces that really bind us to Phoenix, > and your spring module is the final proof. Right. That's also what I think. I just was picking at Roberts wording there. > I have difficult understanding what you (you all) want to refactor when > you talk about POJO, avalon, excalibur by mixing issues. Can we agree on > the above classification for our "dependencies" and be more specific in > the discussion? Yes, we are mixing up different things sometimes. But hey, this only shows how complicated our server architecture is. I understood Robert's statement about refactoring components as being a statement about what might should happen inside excalibur, not here at James. (If it will happen, who knows, I doubt it, but you happen to be at the Excalibur PMC... ;-)) Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
