> I'm torn. A big part of me would like to see us remain > Spring-compatible and therefore use their DTD unchanged (referring to > it directly on their site). That means that all the material out there > about Spring can be used as-is by CFers and we'd be talking the same > language as the Java developers - something that I've railed on the CF > community for not doing in the past!
This is how I feel too, but... > > OTOH, there are likely idiomatic differences between Java and CF that > ColdSpring could leverage to its advantage which might mean a change > in grammar. > Exactly, and looking at the .NET port of Spring, they have their own XSD; they don't even use <bean />, they use <object />... So maybe on our own is the way to go (but it opens up a whole new can of worms... do we change <bean /> to <component />, etc etc? ) > Overall tho', I'd need to see a lot of evidence in favor of forking > before I voted for a separate DTD. Me too, I'd like to stick with the Java version for now because it gave us a great starting point. Regardless, if anyone else has input, I'd love to hear it... -Dave
