Re: [Springframework-developer] Type 3 IoC support

[Brian M. <br...@ap...>]

On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 05:47 PM, Rod Johnson wrote:
> I think that although we should continue to advocate JavaBeans ("Type 
> 2") as
> the best alternative in most cases, Type 3 is a good choice in a 
> minority of
> cases. And in any case, the Spring philosophy is to be non-intrusive. 
> We
> don't want to tell people how they should code.

I am curious why you think that Type 2, JavaBean bases, IoC frameworks 
are a better option. I would tend to think that the more obvious 
constructor oriented dependency resolution is easier to work with and 
maintain. One of the things that has bothered me looking at Spring was 
the considerable volume of configuration xml compared to something like 
a PicoContainer.

I don't think that the component container should be responsible for 
configuring the various components - only for supplying the 
dependencies and, maybe, lifecycle management. The component framework, 
to paraphrase yourself, should stay out of the way and not affect the 
components themselves. I see a a complex set of JavaBean style 
configuration options managed by the framework as a liability as far as 
this goes.

-Brian