WireBox Dependency warnings

Luis, I was thinking all existentially about WireBox the other day and I was wondering about the warnings like this:

The DSL dependency definition: {etc…} did not produce any resulting dependency

Why are those just warnings? Why not make them errors? My reasoning is that if someone has declared a dependency, then the code in that CFC is probably, well, dependent upon it-- meaning that it’s going to error if WireBox is unable to supply it. When a dependance can’t be located, that seems like a fatal error to me. Glossing over it and just logging it is going to just mean that the code errors down the road with a more confusing message (such as foobar is undefined in variables).

We’ve already seen quite a few examples of people on the list who don’t know how, or didn’t think to check their log files and never knew that all their dependencies weren’t injected and it seems some confusion on their part could have been avoided if WireBox had done a full stop at the time and simply let them know that there was an issue.

Does anyone have any examples of when their dependencies are not found, but there app is still able to function without them and they don’t mind ignoring the warnings?




Actually I disagree.

I have a module that I have developed, and I do look for a dependency on my main application, if it is not found I then use the internal modules version.

And this is more important when I start releasing these modules as standalone.


Andrew Scott


Good point Brad.

I was thinking of that too. Maybe we could say if the dependency is not found AND NOT required, then throw the exception with the debug data?

Luis F. Majano
Ortus Solutions, Corp

ColdBox Platform: http://www.coldbox.org
Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/731/483
Blog: http://www.luismajano.com
IECFUG Manager: http://www.iecfug.com