Re: [Springframework-developer] Re: [springframework - Open Discussion] Two feature requests

[Colin S. <col...@ex...>]

It doesn't feel incredibly clean to me, but I am not opposed to adding 
it. My one concern would be if this constrained us somehow for future 
enhancements, but I can't think of any issues right now...


jürgen höller [werk3AT] wrote:

>I'd like to hear further opinions on this... Does anyone strongly object to adding that shortcut style as option? Anyone actually preferring the shortcut style? I wouldn't use it myself, but I don't mind the option.
> 
>Juergen
> 
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: spr...@li... im Auftrag von Rod Johnson
>Gesendet: Di 17.02.2004 22:50
>An: spr...@li...
>Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] Re: [springframework - Open Discussion] Two feature requests
>
>
>
>Well if it's backward compatible... But I don't think we should advocate
>this.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "jürgen höller [werk3AT]" <jue...@we...>
>To: <spr...@li...>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 7:10 PM
>Subject: [Springframework-developer] Re: [springframework - Open Discussion]
>Two feature requests
>
>
>Actually, this is extremely easy to implement: I've just adapted
>DefaultXmlBeanDefinitionParser and it works nicely, still allowing for
><value> tags but also for text values as CDATA...
>
>Of course, I do appreciate the explicit notion of a value, but I guess we
>should allow for this shortcut style too - we shouldn't force people into a
>certain style here.
>
>If noone objects, I'll commit this promptly.
>
>Juergen
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: jürgen höller [werk3AT]
>Gesendet: Di 17.02.2004 20:02
>An: spr...@li...
>Betreff: Fw: [springframework - Open Discussion] Two feature requests
>
>
>Any thoughts on suggestion number 2? As I wrote in that forum, I've
>considered that myself repeatedly...
>
>Juergen
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: SourceForge.net [mailto:no...@so...]
>Gesendet: Mo 16.02.2004 18:10
>An: no...@so...
>Betreff: [springframework - Open Discussion] Two feature requests
>
>
>
>
>Read and respond to this message at:
>https://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=2425898
>By: aaron
>
>Since there are no trackers...
>
>I have two feature requests, and some comments
>
>1) Add a default attribute to the ParameterMethodNameResolver.  Currently,
>if
>the parameter is not present, this resolver just bombs all over... Having a
>default would be trivial to implement and allow the developer to let the
>application
>proceed when a parameter was not provided (no reason to pollute the GET url)
>
>2) This might be a religious issue, but it would be very convenient if
>the requirement of using a nested <value> element in <property> elements,
>for
>values was lifted.  Either there is CDATA (in which case we assume it's a
>literal
>value), or there are nested elements.  Having both could simply result in a
>configuration error.  This would save typing and lots of cumbersome errors
>relating
>to not including the nested <value> element.  Also, some docs give examples
>with literals without this <value> element.
>
>The other things I've run into is: in mapping handlers, although you can
>inspect
>the request and response arguments, you cannot rewrite them (since the
>interfaces
>do not provide mutators).  This makes using request wrappers impossible.  I
>suggest another form of method signature for handlers which take objects
>which
>hold a reference to HttpServletRequest and HttpServletResponse respectively,
>instead of having those objects as direct, immutable arguments.
>
>To get around this I have overridden a handleRequestInternal method in my
>controller
>and just call super.handleRequestInternal giving it
>my HttpServletRequestWrapper.
>  
>