Re: [Springframework-developer] feature request

[Juergen H. <ju...@in...>]

Actually, this can already be achieved through using MapFactoryBean,
ListFactoryBean and SetFactoryBean, respectively - passing a source <map> /
<list> / <set> in and specifying the desired "targetMapClass" /
"targetListClass" / "targetSetClass".

I don't see much advantage in a "type" attribute on the corresponding tags
directly, actually. It's not that common to override the collection
implementations on a per-collection basis to justify a special shortcut for
this, IMO.

Or are you trying to centrally override the default Map / List / Set
implementations that Spring uses for <map> / <list> / <set>? Specifying
those implementation classes _once_ rather than repeating them for every
single collection definition?

Juergen
 

________________________________

From: spr...@li...
[mailto:spr...@li...] On Behalf Of
Crater, Jon (EDS)
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:34 PM
To: spr...@li...
Subject: [Springframework-developer] feature request


i currently have a need to customize the implementation classes created when
spring parses the definitions for properties containing <map>, <list>, etc.
elements.  currently i have to subclass AbstractXmlApplicationContext and
override initBeanDefinitionReader(XmlBeanDefinitionReader r) to call
setParserClass(Class c) with my own subclass of BeanDefinitionParser, which
in turn overrides parseMapElement, etc.  i was hoping that future releases
of spring could support this situation via out of the box configuration.  it
seems like it would be fairly straightforward to respect a "type" attribute
of the <map> and <list> (and any other) elements to support customization of
the Map/Collection implementation without requiring custom extensions.
 
if there's sufficient interest, i'd be happy to contribute.
 
jon