Though, one thing I really like about the current implementation, which
I think Ted alluded to, is the ability to not only support different
implementations but allow them to be easily swapped.
If I have a service facade which is implemented by two swappable but
different implementations, in the current scheme, one could be glued
together with spring and the other with another IoC container without
having to duplicate the action config.
David
David Durham wrote:
Ted Husted wrote:
On 12/12/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <action name="..." class="Spring:SpringBeanName" />
>
> or something like that to kind of indicate to a developer, "Hey, this
> isn't a standard java class name."
>
Good point. I like this idea more because it would allow us to use
multiple object factories simultaneously. You know, you should make an
object factory that parses prefixes to delegate to the proper object
factory... :)
If all of my Actions are being injected, then a prefix adds no
information. It's just six more characters to type (and possibliy
mistype) in each and every attriibute. We'd just be saying "smurf
smurf smurf" :)
The added information is, perhaps, clarity, though you make a strong
argument for possible dubiousness on that point. My original thinking
about this was "this took way to long to figure out, maybe this doc
should have it as a bulleted item." Then, I thought "wait, the action
configiruation isn't explicit about this element." Anyway, if clarity
is not an issue, determinacy certainly is, because name-space collisions
are possible. Maybe solved by an order property like:
objectFactoryOrder = spring, new
Or does this already exist?
-Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
