A resounding +1 on JSR 330. Currently
most injection frameworks define their own annotation types for injection
because there are no established standards (Guice, Spring DM, iPOJO, etc).
This defeats one of the main benefits of injection - framework independence.
If you litter your application code with injection annotations from a particular
injection framework your code is much less portable to other frameworks.
Having standardized annotations for injection would be a huge benefit for
simplifying and increasing adoption of injection.
I don't know if you're looking for just
a vote or more detailed comments on the spec. I think it could use some
improvements, such as having both bind and unbind annotations rather than
a single @Inject annotation. There is often need for asymmetric processing
where there is different behaviour on withdrawal of a service than when
it was injected. We have also been experimenting in e4 with annotating
output fields/methods as well as inputs, but our experiments might be a
bit too early to be considering specification. But regardless of these
limitations it is a good start, and certainly better than nothing!
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/19/2009 10:07 AM
Please respond to
for your consideration
Your comments are invited on the following JSRs. If
you have an opinion
as to how the Eclipse Foundation should vote on either of these JSRs,
please discuss it on this mailing list.
JSR 329 - Portlet 2.0 Bridge for JavaServer Faces 1.2 Specification -
Early Draft Review 2
End of review: 4 September 2009
URL for EDR2 materials:
JSR 330 - Dependency Injection for Java - Early Draft Review
End of review: 20 August 2009
URL for EDR materials:
eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation. To be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.