This content has been marked as final.
Show 5 replies
-
1. Re: Reusable Components vs Extensions
gavin.king Dec 29, 2009 7:18 AM (in response to meetoblivion)I don't think it really matters. If it's generic code and it's portable, it's a
portable extension
, whether it uses the SPI or not. But note that the logging extension actually does have a very small dependency to the SPI, since InjectionPoint is actually part of the SPI package. -
2. Re: Reusable Components vs Extensions
meetoblivion Dec 29, 2009 11:59 AM (in response to meetoblivion)In this case, would integrating a 3PL always end up being an extension, since it would have to use the SPI to work (Logger is integrating a 3PL, SLF4J)?
-
3. Re: Reusable Components vs Extensions
gavin.king Dec 29, 2009 6:05 PM (in response to meetoblivion)
John Ament wrote on Dec 29, 2009 11:59:
In this case, would integrating a 3PL always end up being an extension, since it would have to use the SPI to work (Logger is integrating a 3PL, SLF4J)?Not necessarily. But probably in most cases, yes.
-
4. Re: Reusable Components vs Extensions
meetoblivion Dec 29, 2009 6:49 PM (in response to meetoblivion)Which part is the
not necessarily
? Having to use the SPI? -
5. Re: Reusable Components vs Extensions
gavin.king Dec 29, 2009 7:10 PM (in response to meetoblivion)Right.