Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!198.186.194.250.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Volunteer for Java Development Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 01:07:36 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 72 Message-ID: <18663075.57.1325063256589.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqgf18> References: <91680ebd-1c51-436f-84b3-3a0f5818d123@v31g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <11849113.208.1324619977166.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prez5> <54ad3a8c-b60e-4934-a420-0c0b35679fc7@t36g2000prj.googlegroups.com> <31036852.221.1324660513125.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prfi34> <8736967.534.1324749997285.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pruu23> <4efa5103$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Reply-To: comp.lang.java.programmer@googlegroups.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.164.137.214 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1325063256 15880 127.0.0.1 (28 Dec 2011 09:07:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:07:36 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4efa5103$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.164.137.214; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11021 On Tuesday, December 27, 2011 3:13:03 PM UTC-8, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > On 12/24/2011 1:06 PM, Lew wrote: > > On Friday, December 23, 2011 3:47:40 PM UTC-8, Qu0ll wrote: > >> "Lew" wrote in message > >> news:31036852.221.1324660513125.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prfi34.= .. > >> > >>> Spring sucks. > >>> > >>> Why not use good stuff instead? > >> > >> Care to elaborate on that postulation? > > > > Conclusion, not postulation. >=20 > Th difference between postulation and conclusion without the arguments > seem rather small to me. And yet you then cite the arguments I provided, so how is that "without the= arguemnts", hm? My statement came *with* the arguemnts, some of which you even agreed with,= so what the frack are you on? ... on about? > > I have used Spring on mnay projects. It was always a tangled mess of o= bscure > > references to extrinsic resources to obfuscate logic. This may not be = Spring's > > fault, but it's a consistent result. >=20 > I have seen that too. > > > > Java EE annotations do everything Spring hopes to, only better, more si= mply, > > with a more flowing mental model, in accordance with the standard. > > > > Slam-dunk, BOOYAH! > > > > Why add yet another framework that provides no additional benefit? Bur= den of proof - you. >=20 > That argument is a little thin. The lack of argument from the other side was what was thin. The burden of = proof is on the proponents of Spring, and you haven't lightened that burden= an iota. "That argument is a little thin" without the arguments to show w= hy seems rather small to me. > There are things in Spring that Java EE annotations does not. What, exactly, and is it worth it? C'mon man, don't be so vague. > And besides that there are also something weird called Java SE apps > that does not benefit much from stuff provided by Java EE containers. Not so much, really. The EJB annotations obviously don't help SE much, and= dependency injection and JPA are available for SE, which I find sufficient= if it keeps out of the Spring morass. WEhile it's not literally true that Spring brings nothing new to the table,= it is true enough not to justify the cost of using it to me. Perhaps instead of vaguely waving at what you think is insufficient about n= on-Spring alternatives, could you be specific about what is missing for Jav= a SE that Spring provides and gives enough benefit to justify Spring over t= he alternatives? It's pretty easy to gainsay whatever anyone else says, so= mewhat more challenging to contribute affirmatively. --=20 Lew