|
From: Ken K. <kk...@kk...> - 2003-07-18 22:42:42
|
+1 Sounds right to me. Rod Johnson wrote: >OK, I can implement this. > >I think we must keep InitializingBean however. Many framework classes depend >on it and we should not force users to know the relevant init method that >they may not care about, and we must not force users to remember to set the >magic initialization attribute to get the AOP framework etc to work. > >So I propose: >- Keep InitializingBean >- Add a new "init-method" attribute for arbitrary methods. If a class >implements both IB and has an initializer, the IB method will be called >first. If the user specifies an init-method att and there's no such method >that's treated as a fatal exception. > >Regards, >Rod > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <jp....@ti...> >To: "trisberg" <tri...@tr...> >Cc: "juergen.hoeller" <jue...@we...>; >"springframework-developer" ><spr...@li...> >Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:47 PM >Subject: [Springframework-developer] Re: [Springframework-developer] Fw: >[springframework - Open Discussion] RE: BeanFactory=>Generic Container > > >+1 > >Just to see how handle the Exceptions. No Spring specific Exception has to >be waited for. The called method can have or not a throws statement and it >can always throw a RuntimeException. The factory will have to catch any >Exception and throwing itself a ServletException? If an initialization >method throws any kind of Exception, it's allways fatal. > >So we can gain a new design step. > >Jean-Pierre >---------- Initial Header ----------- > >>From : spr...@li... >To : "jürgen höller [werk3AT]" <jue...@we...> >Cc : spr...@li... >Date : Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:55:43 -0400 >Subject : Re: [Springframework-developer] Fw: [springframework - Open >Discussion] RE: BeanFactory=>Generic Container > >Juergen, > > > >>I consider that an interesting idea: As an alternative to >> >> >InitializingBean, > > >>we could indeed add such an "initializing_method" attribute, specifying a >>no-arg init method on the object. That would allow for initialization that >>depends on multiple properties without implementing any Spring-specific >>interface. What you think about this? >> >> > >+1 > >I see no disadvantages, and it would be nice to not having to depend on any >Spring interfaces at all. > >Thomas > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware >With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. >WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the >same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 >_______________________________________________ >Springframework-developer mailing list >Spr...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer > > >********** L'ADSL A 20 EUR/MOIS********** >Tiscali propose l'ADSL le moins cher du marché : 20 EUR/mois et le modem >ADSL offert ! >Pour profiter de cette offre exceptionnelle, cliquez ici : >http://register.tiscali.fr/adsl/ >Offre soumise à conditions. > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware >With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. >WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the >same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 >_______________________________________________ >Springframework-developer mailing list >Spr...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware >With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine. >WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the >same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0 >_______________________________________________ >Springframework-developer mailing list >Spr...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer > > > > |