From: Piergiuliano Bossi <p_bossi_AGAINST_SPAM@...>
Date: 2005-09-23T00:16:41+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Dissident 0.1, a Ruby dependency injection container

Jacob Fugal wrote:
> On 9/22/05, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Piergiuliano Bossi <p_bossi_AGAINST_SPAM@tiscali.it> writes:
>>
>>>Ehm, to be precise I'm not advocating the use of an IoC container; on
>>>the other side, the principle of dependency injection is an important
>>>tool to put in your box.
>>
>>Just curious, but you could explain why you do not advocate using IoC
>>containers?
> 
> 
> In my understanding, Giuliano wasn't advocating against using IoC
> frameworks[1] (or more specifically, DI frameworks[2]). He simply
> disclaimed himself from advocating a framework or frameworks in
> general. He advocates DI as a principle/tool but leaves it at that.

I cannot say it better than you! :-)
If one day you plan to become a lawyer I may hire you.

> 
> Of course, he may indeed have been advocating against using DI
> frameworks, in which case I'll let him go ahead and defend his
> position. :)
> 
> Jacob Fugal
> 
> [1] I replaced discussion of "containers" with "frameworks". A
> container is an element of one approach to dependency injection. It's
> not a necessary element, and even when it is used it may be named
> differently (e.g. Coplands "registry"). Also, ad-hoc DI without a
> framework may use a form of container. What's being discussed -- ie.
> entities such as Copland, Needle, Dissident, Matz-DI and even Java's
> PicoContainer (despite the word "Container" in the name) -- are
> frameworks.

+1

> 
> [2] The confusion about Inversion of Control (IoC) versus Dependency
> Injection (DI) is significant. I'd suggest avoiding the term IoC in
> favor of DI unless you are specifically talking about an IoC principle
> which is independent of DI.

+1

Ciao
Giuliano



-- 
If you want to send me an email address should be 'p', then a dot, 
followed by 'bossi' at 'quinary', another dot and 'com' at last