I think we need to be open to making changes if they become
necessary, but right now, I don't think they are. I for one really
don't like the idea of changing bean to component. Everything is
working well today. I thin we should sit tight, and maybe take a look
at the one issue that 's been brought up with the name attribute for
constructor-arg.
On Nov 7, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Adrocknaphobia wrote:
IMO (for what its worth), stick as close to the original java DTD and
only make additions to it if necessary. ie. Don't change bean to
component. Try not to make any changes, just additions.
-Adam
On 11/7/05, Dave Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
