Yep, I've looked that the test cases. In short to make that public API
more DI friendly, we should:
* Decouple the current configuration system from the public API. I
see stuff like ZooKeeperServer being coupled to ServerConfig a bit.
* Allow the use of setter injection in addition to constructor
injection. This is the most important thing needed to let spring more
easily configure the objects.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Mahadev Konar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Hiram,
> Thanks for your feedback. Its great to hear from our users.
> About your question regarding injecting zookeeper servers in
> applications, we do have public api' that support creating zookeeper
> servers in an embedding application. Take a look at our test cases where
> we create zookeeper servers via the public api. Is this what you were
> looking for or I misunderstood the reference?
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiram
>> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:07 AM
>> To: email@example.com
>> Subject: An interest in increasing the DI'ness of ZooKeeper?
>> Hi Guys,
>> First off, great project! I think ZooKeeper is a fabulous idea. I
>> can see folks wanting to embedd ZK servers in their products too. I
>> could see the ActiveMQ project embedding it for several reasons. And
>> with that in mind, I think it would be awesome of ZK tried to use
>> more dependency injection (DI) to configure it's objects. That way
>> and embedding project could directly configure it with java code, or
>> use Spring or Guice etc. etc.
>> If you guys are interested in supporting this use case, I'd be happy
>> to start contributing patches to make that happen.
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>> Open Source SOA
Open Source SOA