On 5/11/05, Knut Wannheden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1. You should be able to use the MethodInterceptorFactory as is. This
>
> 2. I think you could get rid of the swarmCacheConfig configuration
Knut, that does look better. Ultimately, what I'd consider a
simple/straightforward notation for defining things would be something
like this:
<module>
<service-point id="StoreContent"
interface="com.freshdirect.cms.application.ContentServiceI">
<construct class="...">
<propertyOne>foo</propertyOne>
<propertyTwo>bar</propertyTwo>
...
</construct>
<interceptor>
<construct
class="com.freshdirect.cms.cache.ContentCacheInterceptor">
<cacheType>Hybrid</cacheType>
<multicastIP>${cms.cache.multicastIP}</multicastIP>
<lruCacheSize>10000</lruCacheSize>
</construct>
</interceptor>
</service-point>
</module>
The key here is:
- allow bean properties (and constructor params) to be easily bound,
with using identically named xml elements that are automatically
mapped. Java type declarations provide a good enough schema
declaration, one rarely has a desire to make the xml mapping
different.
- allow nesting declarations, so I don't have to flatten out simple
hierarchical dependencies, which i found to be very common. (of course
a good editor tool could alleviate this, but let's not fall into this
trap, especially considering that there are no such tools yet).
regards,
viktor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
