[coldspring-dev] An Idea: CF-native functions in the CS XML

[Chris Scott]

Hey Guys, I've been holding back on that info, actually wrote a similar post than pulled the plug this morning. I am currently working on a project that has done a good job of showing some errors with the work in progress. I would NOT suggest pulling the latest BER right now, at least not today. I will fix and commit, but there are some more detailed underlying things that need to be worked out before the BeanFactoryPostProcessor implementation is ready for prime time. Sorry, I have been just completely overwhelmed with new job, and commitments to contracts that are probably more that I should have gotten myself into... Chris Chris Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cdscott.blogspot.com/ http://www.coldspringframework.org/ On Sep 23, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Dave Ross wrote: My initial feeling is that EL support within the xml isn't a good idea, and most of the reasons why have been articulated in this thread. However, last time I talked to Chris about ColdSpring he was working on the BeanFactoryPostProcessor api, which will allow you to have greater control over the values that are set into beans. The ${} syntax we support is basically a hard-coded BeanFactoryPostProcessor (PropertyPlaceholderConfigurer, specifically) - but in the future you'll be able to write your own. So if you want to write one that calls evaluate() on any arbitrary value before it's injected into a bean, you'll be able to do that. I highly recommend a more sane approach - like either the PlaceHolderConfigurer we baked in or something like Spring's PropertyOverrideConfigurer - allowing you to override any existing values in the BeanFactory. The cool thing is that if CS sees a bean that implements BeanFactoryPostProcessor, it will use it within the factory in which it's defined (and any children factories). -Dave On 9/23/06, Matt Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/22/06, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fusebox 4 and on has allowed evaluation of arbitrary expressions in > certain context. Mach II also does this (the variable= attribute). I'm > not sure whether Model-Glue has any evaluation contexts like that but > there are clearly precedents for this sort of thing. One of the things I don't like about Fusebox XML (no offense Sean) is the allowance of If's, Loops, etc. It seems to put the wrong type of code in a place it doesn't belong. I would be curious as M. Woodward was if there is something you just cannot do because of the lack of functions in the XML. Adding a config bean of whatever nature allows you to do what CF functions you want and then be injected wherever you like. So, FWIW, a vote against - until convinced otherwise. -- Matt Williams "It's the question that drives us."