Re: [Springframework-developer] Type 3 IoC support

[Rob B. <rob...@ve...>]

I would agree this is very good stuff!  This is especially useful if you
want to use a third party api but they do not conform to javabean style
no-arg contructors.  However by limiting the implementation to only support
classes that have a single constructor you are all but defeating its
usefulness.

The only reason you would be forced to use / need this kind of a feature is
if you don't have access to the code to implement a no-arg constructor.  For
that same reason, you cannot modify the code to only have 1 constructor. I
would wager that most classes that do provide a constructor which takes args
also supply variations that take more / less args.  So if multiple
constructors are not supported, it's probably not going to be very useful.

Spring is already amazing, and you guys just keep making it better.  Good
work!

Later
Rob
> >
> >The only limitation is that constructor-wired components are just allowed
to have one single constructor. This is also what Pico recommends, although
they have some heuristic kind of constructor choice in case of multiple
constructors now. I guess we can limit this to one single constructor for
the time being. Of course, standard beans defined without
autowire="constructor" or "constructor-arg" tags can still have any number
of constructors, the only requirement being that they must provide a no-arg
constructor.
> >
> >
> One way you could do it (which you probably thought of) is by allowing
> the deployer to specify, in the case of the indexed variant, an optional
> 'type' attribute which specifies the real type (in the receiving object)
> of that constructor argument. This would allow the appropriate
> constructor to be picked without any ambiguity. I don't know if this is
> worth doing or not, but on the other hand, if you are going to support
> constructors at all, it's somewhat arbitrary to stop at 1 if you can
> figure out a relatively simple (albeit wordy) way to support the
> multiple case.
>
> Even if that is not done, maybe it is worth it supporting the special
> case of classes which have a no-arg constructor, and one other
> constructor with one or more args. That's also a pretty common case, and
> easy to support.
>
> Regards,
> Colin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003,
> 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest
> developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL,
> WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Springframework-developer mailing list
> Spr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer