How about to use Spring *"http://www.springframework.org/schema/p
<http://www.springframework.org/schema/p>"* ?
With this schema XML will be like this:
<bean class="org.apache.ignite.configuration.CacheConfiguration"
p:name="test-cache"
p:backups="1"
p:cacheMode="PARTITIONED"
p:atomicityMode="ATOMIC"
p:preloadMode="SYNC"
p:startSize="3000000">
Thoughts?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> I will harp once again on the beauty of DSLs ;)
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:21AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> > This is important question. As far as I know none of our competitors use
> > plain Spring XMLs. Disadvantage of this approach is that users have to
> > learn new synthax for configuration.
> >
> > But on the other hand this gives us independency of Spring format. It is
> > very important from interoperability point of view. For instance,
> currently
> > in GridGain .Net client we can do nothing with Spring XML configuration:
> we
> > cannot load it, modify it, pass object model to Java, etc.. Therefore, we
> > cannot take advantage of new dynamic cache start without introducing
> > boilerplate code responsible for marshalling .Net cache config data model
> > to bytes and unmarshalling it to Java data model in JVM. Also, our
> further
> > non-Java users will have to learn Spring format which can be very
> uncommon
> > for their platform and environment.
> > I believe we will face lots of such problems when developing open-source
> > integration with other platforms.
> >
> > So, I -1 for customSpring XML schemas, but +1 for thinking about new
> > completely independent XML schema _in_addition_ to current Spring
> features.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
> [email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > -1
> > >
> > > Agree with Dmitriy.
> > >
> > > Sergi
> > >
> > > 2015-03-25 10:05 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>:
> > >
> > > > -1
> > > >
> > > > I don't agree from usability standpoint. I like our default Spring
> config
> > > > syntax because it does not require learning of our XML syntax. The
> less
> > > > user has to learn, the better.
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > [email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1. Totally agree with Alexey on this idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2015-03-24 20:45 GMT-07:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <
> [email protected]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think about creating custom Spring XML schema?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example Spring AMQP has its own schema that looks like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <rabbit:connection-factory id="connectionFactory" />
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <rabbit:template id="amqpTemplate"
> > > > connection-factory="connectionFactory"
> > > > > > exchange="myExchange" routing-key="foo.bar"/>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <rabbit:admin connection-factory="connectionFactory" />
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <rabbit:queue name="myQueue" />
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <rabbit:topic-exchange name="myExchange">
> > > > > > <rabbit:bindings>
> > > > > > <rabbit:binding queue="myQueue" pattern="foo.*" />
> > > > > > </rabbit:bindings>
> > > > > > </rabbit:topic-exchange>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could have something similar for Ignite. That will make Ignite
> > > > Spring
> > > > > > XML configs much smaller.
> > > > > > No need to use full class names.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > > > > > GridGain Systems
> > > > > > www.gridgain.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
--
Alexey Kuznetsov
GridGain Systems
www.gridgain.com
