On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:53:42 -0700 "Sean Corfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/12/06, Jared Rypka-Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Fortunately, Joe introduced the <include /> tag in MG > 2.0, so it's not really an issue for MG. > > > > I think Sean's saying he wants an include tag in the > ColdSpring XML and to have CS actually handle it > appropriately. > > Correct.
Yay! I was right about something! > Well, <constructor-arg> is already a departure (because > of the named > argument)... Didn't know that... then again, I have spend about 30 seconds actually looking at Spring itself. Good to know though. > I understand the desire to remain close to Spring and I > think that's > advisable but it shouldn't block us from doing something > powerful and > idiomatic for ColdFusion that is perhaps less applicable > to Java... Totally agreed... I think you're right on the money there. > > If so, you COULD just call it from a controller more > than once to set up your standard "includes" > > Not for stuff that you are relying on CS injecting into > your > controllers - which is the use case I have. I want X > injected into my > controllers but X depends on a common definition Y. Y is > common across > all my MG apps (X is actually specific to each MG app) > and I can't use > a parent bean factory for Y because a definition for Y > already exists > in the MG configuration that I need to override. I'm trackin... makes perfect sense. If CS could <include /> something (which shouldn't be very hard to do at all anyway) it would be able to work off common config file files for your Y objects and satisfy the dependencies for X without duplicating your stuff from app to app. Interesting dilemma... here's to hoping the include tag is made available. Laterz, J
