Grzegorz Kossakowski skrev:
Daniel Fagerstrom pisze:
Any reason for defining the ObjectModel bean in the pipeline-impl
modeule instead of in the expression-language-impl module?
Yep, OM is scoped (with pipelineComponent scope) that is implement in
pipeline-impl.
OK, I didn't think of the scope.
The idea is to
have "template" bean configuration that is marked as abstract and configures
everything except scope
and make a final declaration elsewhere.
I'm not so happy about "non local" use of abstract bean configurations.
AFAICS it doesn't work with spring-osgi where you have one application
context for each block. And there is no obvious way to export abstract
configurations between bundles. Also they make the configurations harder
to read and, IMO, unnecessarily abstract.
I think that abstract bean configurations are OK, as far as they only
are used within the configuation file where they are defined. Otherwise
I prefer beeing a litle bit more verbose. And one can always use factory
beans and custom configurations for complicated configuration patterns.
I also wonder
why you use camel case names for Spring config files instead of
following the name convention that all the rest of the Spring configs in
Cocoon use.
I didn't know we have such convention; so what are the rules?
First, all configuration files are prefixed with the module name. This
is because they are collected from the classpath
(classpath*:META-INF/cocoon/spring somwhere in the configurator code),
to a common global Spring application context. Because of that the file
names needs to be unique.
Second, smallcaps and hyphens are used. E.g. cocoon-core-generators.xml.
/Daniel
