RE: [Springframework-developer] XML bean references

[Trevor C. <pr...@se...>]

+1 for "bean/local"

I don't mind the different "pairs" ("bean/local", "bean/internal", =
"bean/external"), but having a triad (such as the previously proposed =
"bean/external/internal") will be really confusing.  As long as the 3rd =
is deprecated (and hopefully removed after a suitable amount of time) it =
makes sense, just don't have 3 regularly used names.  My 2 cents.

Trevor


-----Original Message-----
From: spr...@li...
[mailto:spr...@li...]On Behalf
Of j=C3=BCrgen h=C3=B6ller [werk3AT]
Sent: October 20, 2003 11:51 AM
To: spr...@li...
Subject: RE: [Springframework-developer] XML bean references


Colin,

Hmmm, you've got a point there. I also like "local" more; I just =
considered "internal" as the opposite for "external". You're right that =
"external" will probably not get used anymore; the only important =
different is referencing a strictly local bean versus any bean.

I'm inclined to go the "bean" / "local" / "external"(deprecated) route =
again... Votes please! Given this decision, I vote for "local" instead =
of "internal"; Colin obviously does too.

Juergen


-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Sampaleanu [mailto:col...@ex...]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 4:50 PM
To: spr...@li...
Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] XML bean references


I'm ok with this, although it's getting more verbose. I also wonder if=20
"external" would ever be used in the future at all? That is, would=20
somebody ever be interested in validating that something is only=20
external? Perhaps people would indeed use it due to the principal of=20
least surprise (that is, if you use only 'internal' and 'external', then =

you always know exactly where your beans are coming from. But then why=20
use the 'ambiguous 'bean' at all?).

If you assume people would probably _not_ use 'external', then I think=20
your original 'local' is nicer name for bean id references that are=20
local to the file only.

i.e.:

- <ref bean=3D"..."/> can reference any bean by any name (equal to =
current "external", similar to current "bean" but without XML idref =
check);
- <ref local=3D"..."/> can reference a bean id in the same XML file =
(equal to the current "bean">
- <ref external=3D"..."/> deprecated, not enocuraged to be used, and =
documented minimally.

If you _do_ think people would actually have a need for and use =
"external" on an ongoing basis, then probably "internal" as the opposite =
does make more sense than "local"...

Regards,

Colin


jrgen h ller [werk3AT] wrote:

>Third and hopefully final attempt at proper attribute naming, with =
"internal" instead of "local" (as it matches its counterpart "external" =
better):=20
>
>- <ref bean=3D"..."/> can reference any bean by any name (equal to =
current "external", similar to current "bean" but without XML idref =
check);
>=20
>- <ref external=3D"..."/> stays as it is for the time being, but in its =
final incarnation, it should check that the reference is really outside =
the current XML file;
>=20
>- <ref internal=3D"..."/> can reference a bean id in the same XML file =
(equal to the formerly proposed "bean-id", with an XML idref check).
>
>Request for comments again :-)
>
>Juergen
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Colin Sampaleanu [mailto:col...@ex...]
>Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 12:53 AM
>To: jrgen h ller [werk3AT]
>Cc: spr...@li...
>Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] XML bean references
>
>
>I think this would work, and is probably the least ambiguous.
>
>jrgen h ller [werk3AT] wrote:
>
> =20
>
>>Colin, Rod,
>>
>>You're right regarding the term "external" for a different XML file, =
not only a different context. On second thought, I consider "bean-id" =
unclear too, as beans in other XML files also have an "id". Thus, a =
slightly refined suggestion:
>>
>>- <ref bean=3D"..."/> can reference any bean by any name (equal to =
current "external", similar to current "bean" but without XML idref =
check);
>>
>>- <ref external=3D"..."/> stays as it is for the time being, but in =
its final incarnation, it should check that the reference is really =
outside the current XML file;
>>
>>- <ref local=3D"..."/> can reference a bean id in the same XML file =
(equal to the formerly proposed "bean-id", with an XML idref check).
>>
>>That's probably as easy to explain as possible: "bean" is the general =
one that can reference anything, "external" is for beans outside the =
current file, "local" for beans inside the current file -- and it's =
still backward-compatible. What do you think?
>>
>>Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>>	-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----=20
>>	Von: Colin Sampaleanu [mailto:col...@ex...]=20
>>	Gesendet: So 19.10.2003 16:20=20
>>	An: j rgen hller [werk3AT]=20
>>	Cc: spr...@li...=20
>>	Betreff: Re: [Springframework-developer] XML bean references
>>=09
>>=09
>>
>>	j rgen hller [werk3AT] wrote:
>>=09
>>	>Everybody,
>>	>
>>	>On the occasion of allowing a single application context to be =
loaded from multiple XML files, I've reconsidered a detail of our XML =
syntax: The "ref" tag currently has two different attributes:
>>	>- "bean" to reference a bean in the same application context via its =
id attribute (the XML id);
>>	>- "external" to reference a bean in a parent context.
>>	>The latter can basically address any bean, be it in the same context =
or a parent, an id or an alias name.
>>	>
>>	>The main rationale behind the "bean"/"external" separation was =
simply separating between XML validation of id refs (by the XML parser) =
and referencing any kind of name (validated by the bean factory). The =
latter was mainly necessary for referencing beans outside of the current =
XML file, at that time a parent context. In the mean time, a single =
context can be defined by multiple XML files; thus I don't consider the =
"bean"/"external" naming appropriate anymore.
>>	>
>>	>Instead, let me suggest different attribute names:
>>	>- keep a "bean" attribute to reference *any* kind of name, be it id =
or alias, just like the current "external" attribute;
>>	>- introduce a new "bean-id" attribute to reference a bean in the =
same XML file via its XML id, like the current "bean" attribute.
>>	>
>>	>If we keep the "external" attribute for the moment as an equivalent =
of the proposed "bean" attribute, this would be fully compatible with =
existing bean definition files. Of course, "bean" attributes would not =
get validated by the XML parser anymore, but that would not break the =
files in any way. "external" attributes would still work too, the same =
as before.
>>	>
>>	>We should recommend migrating to the new pattern though, i.e.:
>>	>- rename "bean" to "bean-id";
>>	>- rename "external" to "bean".
>>	>That should be easy to do; and as the old pattern still works, there =
is no need to migrate existing bean definition files immediately.
>>	>
>>	>I've thought about this for a while, and I consider it very =
important to clarify the attributes in a way like the above. Else, it =
will be pretty hard to explain the rationale behind "bean" and =
"external", especially when using multiple XML files for a single =
context. "bean" and "bean-id" are far easier to explain: "bean" always =
works, "bean-id" adds validation by the XML parser if specifying a bean =
id in the same context.
>>	>
>>	>Any thoughts on this, any strong objections? I would actually like =
to get this into M2, although it's pretty close already. As the change =
is trivial to implement and fully backward compatible, that shouldn't =
matter too much.
>>	>=20
>>	>
>>	Even the current 'external' can be considered to still make sense if =
you
>>	ust consider it to mean the bean you are refering to is 'external' to
>>	the current xml file, as opposed to the current definition, that is =
it
>>	external to the current context.
>>=09
>>	However, I do agree that it's probably cleaner and makes more sense =
to
>>	just go with 'bean' and 'bean-id', and emphasize that the latter =
should
>>	be used if possible for extra validation... That point should =
definitely
>>	be documented properly (and used in the examples), so people don't
>>	accidentally throw away this free validation by using just 'bean'.
>>=09
>>




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email sponsored by: Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo
The Event For Linux Datacenter Solutions & Strategies in The Enterprise=20
Linux in the Boardroom; in the Front Office; & in the Server Room=20
http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
_______________________________________________
Springframework-developer mailing list
Spr...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
                     +=12=17 ?[){([ ' +=1E.) Z+??`zw=1E Li8^=12Z+.) =
6??ig [ +kj?"8^=12{^?  b^=06?v(=17?9 q {ay' ?  0  +=1E) +o o             =
    *kx=1F  ?zZ)zXX*kx=1F? ?zZ)z l .a=1Ew i +-(=1E~ { b ?+-w k?x=1F? =
?zZ)