This sounds great. I would suggest opening a Jira to work out the
proposal and track the patch.
Hiram Chirino wrote:
> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> 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