You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@roller.apache.org by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> on 2013/08/13 04:16:21 UTC
Remove Google Guice from trunk?
Hi Team, I'm thinking it might be good to remove the Google Guice
dependency from trunk and go 100% Spring DI. I'm sure Guice is a fine
lightweight framework if you wish to avoid bringing in heavier Spring.
But we already are using Spring for DI and for security, and it isn't
going anywhere, so we might as well use it throughout instead of mixing
and matching two DI frameworks. Also, our Guice dependency is at 2.0
and the Google team presently has 4.0 in beta so what we have is rather
old anyway. WDYT?
Regards,
Glen
Re: Remove Google Guice from trunk?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the tip, I was able to update to the latest Guice prod 3.0
with just a pom version switch.
Glen
On 08/13/2013 09:50 AM, Bob Lee wrote:
> Also:
>
> * Spring may be "heavier" when it comes to API surface area and jar size,
> but Guice is actually more sophisticated and has a higher API
> power-to-weight ratio.
>
> * Guice 4 is backwards compatible with Guice 2 (and Guice 1 for that
> matter). You should be able to just drop in Guice 4, run your tests and be
> done.
>
> I'm biased though. :-)
>
> Bob
> On Aug 13, 2013 6:55 AM, "Dave" <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -1 on switching to Spring DI for these reasons:
>>
>> * It's an arbitrary change: we should have a compelling reason before
>> making a dependency change like this
>> * Roller only has one dependency on Spring and one that can be easily
>> replaced with standard Java EE Container Managed Authentication or Apache
>> Shiro, etc.
>> * I know Guice pretty well and don't see the need to tackle a new learning
>> curve
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Team, I'm thinking it might be good to remove the Google Guice
>>> dependency from trunk and go 100% Spring DI. I'm sure Guice is a fine
>>> lightweight framework if you wish to avoid bringing in heavier Spring.
>> But
>>> we already are using Spring for DI and for security, and it isn't going
>>> anywhere, so we might as well use it throughout instead of mixing and
>>> matching two DI frameworks. Also, our Guice dependency is at 2.0 and the
>>> Google team presently has 4.0 in beta so what we have is rather old
>> anyway.
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Glen
>>>
>>>
>>>
Re: Remove Google Guice from trunk?
Posted by Bob Lee <cr...@crazybob.org>.
Also:
* Spring may be "heavier" when it comes to API surface area and jar size,
but Guice is actually more sophisticated and has a higher API
power-to-weight ratio.
* Guice 4 is backwards compatible with Guice 2 (and Guice 1 for that
matter). You should be able to just drop in Guice 4, run your tests and be
done.
I'm biased though. :-)
Bob
On Aug 13, 2013 6:55 AM, "Dave" <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1 on switching to Spring DI for these reasons:
>
> * It's an arbitrary change: we should have a compelling reason before
> making a dependency change like this
> * Roller only has one dependency on Spring and one that can be easily
> replaced with standard Java EE Container Managed Authentication or Apache
> Shiro, etc.
> * I know Guice pretty well and don't see the need to tackle a new learning
> curve
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Team, I'm thinking it might be good to remove the Google Guice
> > dependency from trunk and go 100% Spring DI. I'm sure Guice is a fine
> > lightweight framework if you wish to avoid bringing in heavier Spring.
> But
> > we already are using Spring for DI and for security, and it isn't going
> > anywhere, so we might as well use it throughout instead of mixing and
> > matching two DI frameworks. Also, our Guice dependency is at 2.0 and the
> > Google team presently has 4.0 in beta so what we have is rather old
> anyway.
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Glen
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Remove Google Guice from trunk?
Posted by Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com>.
OK, perhaps we can revisit this issue again after the OpenID is working
properly with the latest Spring Security, which I hope to get to soon.
In the meantime we can just upgrade Guice to the latest prod 3.0.
Regards,
Glen
On 08/13/2013 07:54 AM, Dave wrote:
> -1 on switching to Spring DI for these reasons:
>
> * It's an arbitrary change: we should have a compelling reason before
> making a dependency change like this
> * Roller only has one dependency on Spring and one that can be easily
> replaced with standard Java EE Container Managed Authentication or Apache
> Shiro, etc.
> * I know Guice pretty well and don't see the need to tackle a new learning
> curve
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Team, I'm thinking it might be good to remove the Google Guice
>> dependency from trunk and go 100% Spring DI. I'm sure Guice is a fine
>> lightweight framework if you wish to avoid bringing in heavier Spring. But
>> we already are using Spring for DI and for security, and it isn't going
>> anywhere, so we might as well use it throughout instead of mixing and
>> matching two DI frameworks. Also, our Guice dependency is at 2.0 and the
>> Google team presently has 4.0 in beta so what we have is rather old anyway.
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Glen
>>
>>
>>
Re: Remove Google Guice from trunk?
Posted by Dave <sn...@gmail.com>.
-1 on switching to Spring DI for these reasons:
* It's an arbitrary change: we should have a compelling reason before
making a dependency change like this
* Roller only has one dependency on Spring and one that can be easily
replaced with standard Java EE Container Managed Authentication or Apache
Shiro, etc.
* I know Guice pretty well and don't see the need to tackle a new learning
curve
- Dave
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Glen Mazza <gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Team, I'm thinking it might be good to remove the Google Guice
> dependency from trunk and go 100% Spring DI. I'm sure Guice is a fine
> lightweight framework if you wish to avoid bringing in heavier Spring. But
> we already are using Spring for DI and for security, and it isn't going
> anywhere, so we might as well use it throughout instead of mixing and
> matching two DI frameworks. Also, our Guice dependency is at 2.0 and the
> Google team presently has 4.0 in beta so what we have is rather old anyway.
> WDYT?
>
> Regards,
> Glen
>
>
>