[Springframework-developer] 1.0 M3 prepared

[<jue...@we...>]

Everybody,
=20
I've just prepared the release as far as possible: fixed all javadoc =
errors, added missing package javadocs, tested the samples. All tests =
for shipped components pass on my machine (when running via Ant).
=20
The TLD is now loaded from the spring.jar file, referenced via the =
default URI http://www.springframework.org/tags (analogous to Struts and =
JSTL). BaseCommandController uses setCommandName now, with setBeanName =
being deprecated.
=20
Whoever wants to give it a try, fetch the latest CVS contents, run the =
release target, and "play user" with spring-framework-1.0-m3.zip (it's =
in the target/release directrory): unzip it, browse through the docs, =
build the sample wars (call ant warfile or warfile.bat) and drop them =
into your container's webapps directory.
=20
Alef, could you give the tiles-example a final try? I'm not keen on =
including struts.jar in the Spring distribution, so the example should =
be prepared for deployment with a manually added struts.jar.
=20
A final note on a further naming issue: I'm not entirely happy with =
"ListableBeanFactoryImpl". For example, BeanWrapperImpl is *the* =
implementation of BeanWrapper, hardly any chance for alternative =
implementations - the interface is rather a simplified API for it. But =
ListableBeanFactoryImpl implements ConfigurableListableBeanFactory with =
registration methods for a specific properties format; this seems to be =
a different case to me.
=20
So wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it =
"DefaultListableBeanFactory"? That name change should not affect typical =
applications anyway but just "power users" who should be willing to =
migrate via a simple class name change. I quite strongly prefer this =
name to "ListableBeanFactoryImpl", actually. If we agree on the new =
name, let's better change it now instead of in the 1.0 RC phase.
=20
Juergen
=20