Yes, it is standard Spring. On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote:
> From what I can tell, this is standard Spring. No changes required to > Ignite, right? > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > It seems way cleaner! And considering that a DSL will require some extra > > work > > to work on the language and create the builder classes - perhaps going > your > > way would be more efficient. > > > > Thanks! > > Cos > > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 04:34PM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote: > > > 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 > > > -- Alexey Kuznetsov GridGain Systems www.gridgain.com
