Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for Spring 1.1 final

[<tho...@tr...>]

Colin,

I don't see any coverage of WebApplicationContextUtils for using
getWebApplicationContext in the Reference Docs Chapter 3 - maybe we should add
that to document how to show how to get hold of the context for apps that don't
use any particular MVC framework.

Thomas


Quoting Colin Sampaleanu <col...@ex...>:

> I've gone through the jpetstore and petclinic apps and modified them to
> define transaction proxies in the more concise form.
>
> I've also generated a new version of the docs and updated the web site.
> I will update at least one more time after we finally release...
>
> Colin
>
>
> Rod Johnson wrote:
>
> >Thanks! Yes, we should definitely stress the more concise form. I'll look at
> >the reference manual material as soon as I can and give my views on
> >emphasis.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: spr...@li...
> >[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf Of
> >Colin Sampaleanu
> >Sent: 16 August 2004 06:25
> >To: spr...@li...
> >Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for Spring 1.1 final
> >
> >I've documented this, and also added text in the manual in the AOP and
> >transaction sections talking about the more concise form for defining
> >multiple proxies which can share some properties, by using parent/child bean
> >definitions, along with an inner bean for the proxy target.
> >
> >I'm actually of the opinion that we should change our samples to use this
> >form, for the TransactionProxyFactoryBean cases. I can't think of a reason
> >why somebody would ever not use the parent/child form when defining more
> >than a couple of transaction proxies. I realize our samples don't have many
> >proxies, but people are going to copy those as best-form, boilerplate code,
> >and wind up with much more verbose definitions than they really need to
> >have.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Colin
> >
> >Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'll document this some time today, and look for any other low-hanging
> >>fruit...
> >>
> >>Rod Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Great!
> >>>
> >>>I haven't documented the new "factory-bean" attribute that supports
> >>>the use of instance (rather than static) factory methods in the
> >>>Reference Manual yet. (It is documented in the DTD.) Doesn't justify
> >>>holding the release, but worth noting. (Hint, hint.)
> >>>
> >>>Unfortunately I won't have time to do this myself before the release.
> >>>
> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: spr...@li...
> >>>[mailto:spr...@li...] On
> >>>Behalf Of jürgen höller [werk3AT]
> >>>Sent: 14 August 2004 20:04
> >>>To: spr...@li...
> >>>Subject: [Springframework-developer] Preparing for Spring 1.1 final
> >>>
> >>>Everybody,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>From my point of view, Spring 1.1 final is ready for release; the
> >>>>only
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>remaining point is documentation. There's no reference docs on the
> >>>HTTP invoker yet, for example: While this is not too critical, I'll
> >>>try to add docs on it till Monday.
> >>>
> >>>Feel free to give the current CVS snapshot a final try, and to do
> >>>some final proof-reading of the docs! Please report any issues ASAP:
> >>>I currently plan to do the release Monday night, provided that there
> >>>are no showstoppers.
> >>>
> >>>Juergen
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media
> 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33
> Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift.
> http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285
> _______________________________________________
> Springframework-developer mailing list
> Spr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
>