incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <>
Subject Re: [Ftpserver] Comments on the new code
Date Sun, 02 Oct 2005 04:17:03 GMT
On Sunday 02 October 2005 06:52, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
> Paul Hammant wrote:
> > OK, if we're keen about Dependency Injection, we'd need to change a
> > lot.  The basic FtpConfig component should have little knowledge of
> > UserManager (and others), and no coupling to it...
> If we do aim for a DI/IoC approach (and I think we should), should we
> choose a DI implementation (Pico, Spring...) that we ship as the default
> implementation? Or, should we try to implement a specialized runtime
> ourselves? I would certainly go for the former option and would favour
> Spring but I'm guessing that Paul won't agree on this choice :-).

DI/IoC isn't dependent on a runtime platform, and I think Paul agrees that one 
can make good DI/IoC without relying on Spring, Pico or whatever. Also, these 
things tends to take religious proportions fairly quickly, so staying away 
from any such commitment is a GoodThing.

IMHO, the basic design and implementation should be XML free and provide a 
straight forward API for assembly, configuration (preferably atomic) and the 
other stuff. Any runtime platform support can be added on top of that. Look 
at Jetty for an example of this approach.

Now, Noel's suggestion for OSGi as the runtime platform is interesting, if for 
no other reason than it allows for hot deploy and reloads. But I think it 
would be possible to provide a BundleActivator and register the service(s) 
even if FtpServer does not require OSGi by definition, if the above approach 
is done well (again Jetty is an example of OSGi bundle on top of its API).


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message