I would be in favor of modifying Spring's DTD in particular to in dicate the name is an acceptable attribute for <constructor-arg>. This is the #1 error I see in XMLBuddy when editing files. I don't think it would be that bad to stray just slightly from Spring DTD when appropriate for how CF handles objects.
--Kurt On 11/3/05, Peter J. Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave Ross wrote: > > >Yes, we could do that, as long as we keep diligent about adding back > >in the features as we add them. > > > >There is one thing I just remembered where we are not really compliant > >with the dtd. > > > >In ColdSpring, the <constructor-arg/> tag requires a "name" attribute > >like <property/>, unlike Spring, which optionally allows an "index" > >attribute for <constructor-arg/>. I'm not really sure how to handle > >that one... obviously we could just use "index" as the contructor-arg > >name, but that's confusing IMO. > > > >-Dave > > > > > Sounds like we should just take the Spring DTD and modify it. Couldn't > we just comment out the un-needed things and un-comment them when they > are added in? > > I agreed - using "index" as "name" is very confusing. Probably better > not use that terminology. I would be just like me spending 30 minutes > freaking out about <bean> before I finally just let it go and now it's > becoming commonplace in my head. Although it would be cool to say - > look we can do the same as Spring in CF - but at what expense to > developers to remember everything. > > .Peter > > -- > Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing > http://blog.maestropublishing.com > > Rooibos Generator - Version 2.1 > Create boilerplate beans and transfer objects for ColdFusion for free! > http://rooibos.maestropublishing.com/ > > Member Team Mach-II - It's coming...we're in a code freeze! > > >
