Re: [Springframework-developer] xml dtd addition for bean id reference

[Rod J. <rod...@in...>]

Colin

I think the first way would be preferable at this late stage. It's backward
compatible anyway--previous definitions will still work--so I'm happy for
you to do it.

We can always improve the implementation in future.

I'm happy with beanid/bean for naming.

Regards,
Rod

----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Sampaleanu" <col...@ex...>
To: <spr...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] xml dtd addition for bean id
reference


> I took a bit of a look at this. It would be completely trivial to
> support at a basic level, where the element would be converted at parse
> time into a string, essentially exactly resolving to exactly the same as
> <value>xx/<value>. This would allow validation of local beans via the
> xml parser's idref mechanism, but would not allow Spring (or anybody
> else using the parser) to validate external bean ids, since the info
> would be lost.
>
> The better option would be to treat it in a way similar to the same way
> <ref> is treated right now, via a special placeholder similar to ref's
> RuntimeBeanReference. This touches a lot more code though.
>
> Unless there is opposition I would like to add at least the basic level
> mentioned in the first paragraph. I think it's a piece of low-hanging
> fruit that will save some people from typos a bit earlier in the
> build/deploy/test cycle...
>
>
>
> Colin Sampaleanu wrote:
>
> > Actually, now that I think about it, it's not just about validation.
> > If you are in an IDE plugin, the new element would allow the plugin to
> > offer code completion on the id name... Otherwise (with the present
> > setup), it would have to know something about the actual object using
> > those properties, to know they are in fact bean ids...
> >
> >
> > Rod Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> Mmm, I'd need to think about that. I guess the validation potential
> >> would be
> >> good. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Btw the switch from interceptors to interceptorNames was necessary as
> >> the
> >> old way was conceptually wrong. It couldn't handle common
> >> interceptors or
> >> advisors that were prototypes. This is important to support mixin
usage,
> >> which should now always work correctly.
> >>
> >> Rod
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Colin Sampaleanu" <col...@ex...>
> >> To: <spr...@li...>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 5:32 PM
> >> Subject: [Springframework-developer] xml dtd addition for bean id
> >> reference
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> The recent switch in AbstractAutoProxyCreate which forced me to switch
> >>> some BeanNameAutoProxyCreator configs from something like
> >>> ...
> >>>     <property name="interceptorNames">
> >>>      <list>
> >>>        <ref bean="hibInterceptor"/>
> >>>        <ref bean="matchAllTxInterceptor</ref>
> >>>      </list>
> >>>    </property>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> to
> >>> ...
> >>>    <property name="interceptorNames">
> >>>      <list>
> >>>        <value>hibInterceptor</value>
> >>>        <value>matchAllTxInterceptor</value>
> >>>      </list>
> >>>    </property>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> got me thinking that the former did have the advantage of being much
> >>> easier to validate without getting the actual user of the properties
> >>> (the postprocessor in this case) involved. That is, in the case of a
> >>>   <ref local="xxx" />
> >>> the xml processor can do it, while
> >>>   <ref bean="xxx" />
> >>> can be validate by the loader or something like an Eclipse plugin. But
> >>>
> >>>    <property name="interceptorNames">
> >>>      <list>
> >>>        <value>something</value>
> >>>      </list>
> >>>    </property>
> >>>
> >>> can only be validate by the user of that property.  So how about we
add
> >>> another element which is used to produce a text value which is a bean
> >>> id. That is:
> >>>    <property name="interceptorNames">
> >>>      <list>
> >>>        <beanid bean="a-local-or-external-bean"/>
> >>>        <beanid local="a-local-bean"/>
> >>>      </list>
> >>>    </property>
> >>>
> >>> The latter beanid element would be checked by the xml processor. The
> >>> former would be checkable only by the loader or by something like an
> >>> IDE
> >>> plugin.
> >>>
> >>> What does everybody think?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Colin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software.
> >>> Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering
> >>> advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms.
> >>> Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Springframework-developer mailing list
> >>> Spr...@li...
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer
> >>>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> _______________________________________________
> Springframework-developer mailing list
> Spr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer