wicket, unlike tapestry, is an unmanaged framework. that means you instantiate objects yourself when you need them using the new operator, not ask some factory for an instance. we are big on using constructors in wicket, cause you know...object and all that junk. di frameworks pretty much kill constructors. so we have reached a compromise - we have a hook in components that calls out to application listeners - and that is what injects components. other objects, that do not extend Component, are hard for us to wire because of the whole unmanaged thing....
-igor On Feb 18, 2008 11:52 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doesn't that go against the whole idea of Dependency Injection (the > "Hollywood Principle")? Objects needing their dependencies shouldn't > have to ask to be injected. > > On 2/18/08, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, James Carman wrote: > > > Some of the things that I need to have injected aren't being injected > > > into "components." For instance, I'm working on an > > > > In those cases you can do still use @SpringBean from > > wicket-spring in that class and call > > > > InjectorHolder.getInjector().inject(this); > > > > in the constructor (or other suitable place) of that > > class. > > > > Best wishes, > > Timo > > > > -- > > Timo Rantalaiho > > Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
