Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Volunteer for Java Development Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 10:06:37 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: <8736967.534.1324749997285.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pruu23> 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> 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 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1324749997 9145 127.0.0.1 (24 Dec 2011 18:06:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:06:37 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: 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:10988 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. I have used Spring on mnay projects. It was always a tangled mess of obscure references to extrinsic resources to obfuscate logic. This may not be Spring's fault, but it's a consistent result. Java EE annotations do everything Spring hopes to, only better, more simply, with a more flowing mental model, in accordance with the standard. Slam-dunk, BOOYAH! Why add yet another framework that provides no additional benefit? Burden of proof - you. -- Lew