Re: [Springframework-developer] I don't like the DefaultXmlBeanDefinitionParser

[Martin K. <Mar...@St...>]

>I don't think we have heard from Martin why he wants to extend
> DefaultXmlBeanDefinitionParser. We don't know if it's in the intrest
> of Spring to change something or not.

I stated that I was reviewing to understand what's going on.
Also I said that I want to add support for contributions to string
(at least to see how it goes and if it would be suitable at least
for the RPC subproject).

>> I think the main reason to use the W3C DOM API directly is to avoid the 
>> need
>> for an extra dependency (e.g. JDOM) just to parse the XML bean 
>> definitions.
>> You end up with an "less than elegant" implementation in
>> DefaultXmlBeanDefinitionParser, but in this case the benifits outweigh 
>> the
>> costs.
>>
>> Erwin Vervaet
>> erw...@er...
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: Martin Kersten
>> To: spr...@li...
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 1:21 PM
>> Subject: [Springframework-developer] I don't like the
>> DefaultXmlBeanDefinitionParser
>>
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>>    I am currently trying to extend the framework by supporting
>> contributions.
>> Just to see how it feels.
>>
>> So I made some investigations in the sourcecode. I don't want to start a 
>> war
>> about proper design rules, since I am a believer in 'Interface belongs to
>> the
>> client' stuff and you are appearently not, but this isn't the issue I 
>> want
>> to
>> talk about.
>>
>> Th implementation I hate most on first sight is the
>> XMLBeanDefinitionParser. I know it does what it should but you can read
>> this:
>>
>>  /**
>>   * Make the horrible DOM API slightly more bearable:
>>   * get the text value we know this element contains.
>>   */
>>
>> Well I would agree but it's a bit wired also. You think the DOM API is
>> horrible
>> and you are still using it? You know what it means to use a
>> horrible API? You write a horrible implementation! And thats how it 
>> looks.
>> It took me more then a gaze to catch the meaning of the parser and I also
>> got blown by the code duplication. Since I am in need to extend this 
>> class,
>>
>> So I would like to ask if I may refactor it and commit you a patch (or 
>> maybe
>> a complete reimplementation)?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Martin (Kersten)
>>
>> PS: By the way, how about 'Hidding 3rd party library behind single
>> interface?'