Spring IoC in jboss microkernel

[SZ]

Strange, the jboss microkernel IoC looks very similar to Spring's:
http://docs.jboss.org/nightly/microk...ml/basics.html

:?

[Rod Johnson]

Isn't that amazing? And yet it must be entirely coincidental, because you can search all the pages about their MicroContainer and not find a single reference to Spring :-)

[SZ]

It's high time for copyrights on patterns!
At least in this case, there should be a copyright on the XML schema for Spring IoC... :idea:

[Rod Johnson]

Now it is going to be interesting to see how JBoss maintain their FUD campaign against Spring while flagrantly imitating part of its core. But I'm sure they'll manage...

The real question is: if they sincerely believe in open source, why are they imitating a popular and mature product instead of building on it? Is it NIH, dislike of Apache License, or their commercial and political agenda (which seems to be violently hostile to Spring and Interface21)?

Surely the time would be ripe for another vendor to consider building a kernel that used the original Spring container rather than an imitation...

[cepage]

Yikes! These guys are running the risk of isolating themselves here. One of the things that makes Spring so successful is the high-level of third party support. How many third-parties are going to want to maintain JBoss-only configurations, when they can maintain a Spring configuration that will work across all servers?

It's high time for copyrights on patterns!
At least in this case, there should be a copyright on the XML schema for Spring IoC...

I hope you're joking.

Surely the time would be ripe for another vendor to consider building a kernel that used the original Spring container rather than an imitation...

Isn't that what Geronimo is doing?

[Alarmnummer]

But is Spring the first container that uses inversion of control?

I think Spring is a great product, but Spring also builds on concepts found by other products.

[wpoitras]

It did also added a few additional things over : start and stop lifecycle methods to go along with the create and destroy. Sort of a combination of what Spring and Picocontainer (who have start/stop, but not create/destroy). Plus the ability to pass arguments to the create/destroy methods.

Anyone care to comment why you need that much flexibility?

[Alarmnummer]

Plus the ability to pass arguments to the create/destroy methods.

This is something Spring misses.

Anyone care to comment why you need that much flexibility?

What do you mean?

And Flexibility in Spring is good. Spring is a framework that is going to be used for a wide variety of applications and there will be a lot of different needs.

[jbetancourt]

Interesting, in another blog there is this:

As far as all your other claims of how great your "integration" libraries are, I remain totally unimpressed Yes, the IoC, AOP, WF, is interesting stuff, but the rest? Trivial BS. Otherwise we would have copied you long ago.

Posted by Bill Burke (24.61.248.137) on October 04, 2005 at 03:52 PM EDT

See http://www.jroller.com/comments/jcar...ed_me#comments

So I guess the Microcontent stuff contridicts this quote? Its not BS?

[wpoitras]

Plus the ability to pass arguments to the create/destroy methods.

This is something Spring misses.

Anyone care to comment why you need that much flexibility?

What do you mean?

And Flexibility in Spring is good. Spring is a framework that is going to be used for a wide variety of applications and there will be a lot of different needs.

I'm wondering why having start/stop PLUS create/destroy and arguments to the create menthod is necessary. I don't think it is. But I use Spring, so I've settled into my comfortable little world without it. So I wanted people's comments on what this added to a container?