<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I Don&#8217;t Get &#8220;I Don&#8217;t Get Spring&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2006/01/30/i-dont-get-i-dont-get-spring/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2006/01/30/i-dont-get-i-dont-get-spring/</link>
	<description>Jing Xue's Weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:35:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jing Xue</title>
		<link>http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2006/01/30/i-dont-get-i-dont-get-spring/comment-page-1/#comment-441</link>
		<dc:creator>Jing Xue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:52:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/?p=84#comment-441</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s not 90% of the way. That&#039;s maybe the first 10% - &quot;use Java Bean setters to set properties&quot;.  There is no value in doing that, because the idea of the DI Pattern only makes sense when the dependencies being injected are *configurable*.

Besides, even your code has a container - the Init class is a container from class Whatever&#039;s perspective (and whatever other classes Init inits).  It&#039;s just this container is the most primitive and entirely hard-code, and hence useless.

What&#039;s good about Spring?  The short answer is, as far as the core container is concerned, it gives a powerful implementation of the DI Pattern.  If we agree that the DI Pattern is good (Bob Lee seems do), then that&#039;s what&#039;s good about Spring.  The fundamental flaw in Bob&#039;s blog is that he is proving his point from a wrong angle.  What he tries to prove is &quot;there are problems in the way Spring does things&quot;, which is completely different from his subject - &quot;what&#039;s the point of Spring?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s not 90% of the way. That&#8217;s maybe the first 10% &#8211; &#8220;use Java Bean setters to set properties&#8221;.  There is no value in doing that, because the idea of the DI Pattern only makes sense when the dependencies being injected are *configurable*.</p>
<p>Besides, even your code has a container &#8211; the Init class is a container from class Whatever&#8217;s perspective (and whatever other classes Init inits).  It&#8217;s just this container is the most primitive and entirely hard-code, and hence useless.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s good about Spring?  The short answer is, as far as the core container is concerned, it gives a powerful implementation of the DI Pattern.  If we agree that the DI Pattern is good (Bob Lee seems do), then that&#8217;s what&#8217;s good about Spring.  The fundamental flaw in Bob&#8217;s blog is that he is proving his point from a wrong angle.  What he tries to prove is &#8220;there are problems in the way Spring does things&#8221;, which is completely different from his subject &#8211; &#8220;what&#8217;s the point of Spring?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/2006/01/30/i-dont-get-i-dont-get-spring/comment-page-1/#comment-438</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:11:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.digizenstudio.com/blog/?p=84#comment-438</guid>
		<description>That 90% of the way is like this:


public class Whatever {

    public void setDude(Dude dude) {
        ...
    }

    ...

}

public class Init {

    public void init() {
        Whatever whatever = new Whatever();
        whatever.setDude(new SomeDude());
        ...
    }

    ...

}


Notice no container?

So back to the original question. What&#039;s good about Spring? You said it has good JavaDocs and convenient implementation classes. But that&#039;s not a very compelling argument. How about giving some meat?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That 90% of the way is like this:</p>
<p>public class Whatever {</p>
<p>    public void setDude(Dude dude) {<br />
        &#8230;<br />
    }</p>
<p>    &#8230;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>public class Init {</p>
<p>    public void init() {<br />
        Whatever whatever = new Whatever();<br />
        whatever.setDude(new SomeDude());<br />
        &#8230;<br />
    }</p>
<p>    &#8230;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>Notice no container?</p>
<p>So back to the original question. What&#8217;s good about Spring? You said it has good JavaDocs and convenient implementation classes. But that&#8217;s not a very compelling argument. How about giving some meat?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
