Re: WebObjects and dependency injection (DI)
Re: WebObjects and dependency injection (DI)
- Subject: Re: WebObjects and dependency injection (DI)
- From: Andrew Lindesay <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:24:14 +1200
Hi Anjo;
I guess this could be helpful in _some_ situations; I take for
example, the Jetty server. Jetty can have a number of "handlers"
added to it. Each handler does something like re-writes, feeds disk-
based content, runs servlets etc.. etc.. The Jetty authors could not
have envisaged all of the possible handlers that might have been
written for Jetty, but because of the configuration style which
follows the same line of thinking as Andrus is describing, it is
possible to configure additional handlers. So that's a good example
of where this seems quite helpful and Andrus' other examples also feel
like good examples, but I agree that it seems like over-kill for many
situations.
cheers.
Thanks for the write-up, but yeah, this can all be achieved w/o it.
I really don't see why I shouldn't configure my app with
if(Configration.isStaging())... and instead use DI. At least my way
I easily find all the occurrences and have full logic support if(!
Configuration.isStaging()). How is DI "cleaner" in any way when:
- I have any number of DI containers and their various syntax to
chose from
- I can't *find* the dependencies when I really want or need them.
Have you ever tried to debug such an app that wasn't written by
yourself? Take a look at the Red5 Media server for some fun...
___
Andrew Lindesay
www.lindesay.co.nz
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden