As I tried to articulate earlier I hold the same view as Chris. I
think only minor, minor changes should be necessary. :)

--Kurt

On 11/7/05, Chris Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to