Spring supports it, but in practice you'd want to stay away from it. I
thought more along the lines of a script that is interpreted at startup.
On 2012-09-10 10:15 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
hmm 'scriptable' imo implies that it can be changed at runtime. But that's by
design not possible with CDI. Spring supports this, we do not. Otoh this allows
us to be much faster in all 'static' use cases.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Marius Bogoevici <marius.bogoev...@gmail.com>
To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: XML Config
G enerally speaking, I think it would be good to have a mechanism for
configuring beans that does not require re-compilation - may be of
limited use in greenfield applications, but above all with
brownfield/legacy code. In fairness, for the latter one could use
producers and such, but it may still be a PITA in some cases.
Now, the key here IMO would be to have a scriptable (no recompilation)
and toolable DSL outside the annotation system. It so happens that of
all the options, XML is IMO the most common and better understood by the
average developer. If we manage to define a proper intermediate model
for this mechanism, then there could be plenty of other options (yaml,
or even Groovy or Ruby if one so wishes) to add on later.
On 2012-09-10 3:50 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
what does bring xml? i think that's the point
if it is only to get a format with hierarchy you can use yaml for instance
*Romain Manni-Bucau*
*Twitter: @rmannibucau*
*Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com*
2012/9/10 Bernard Łabno <s4...@pjwstk.edu.pl>
If you find elegant way to do everything that can be currently done
then
it's cool not to use XML, but if we won't be able to i.e.
configure bean
properties between compilation and deployment then it will be great
disappointment.
2012/9/10 Charles Moulliard <ch0...@gmail.com>
I would prefer that we avoid to use XML. Otherwise, end users will
be
confused about what a CDI / CDI Extension should looks like and why
we
are
moving one step down to do what Spring / Xbean are doing.
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
<rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote:
Why i would like to use files (i find xml too verbose) is for
constants
(uri for instance) or alternative/interceptor (as mentionned)
Today i find other use case the translation of bad design
...just my opinion maybe
Le 7 sept. 2012 23:01, "Jason Porter"
<lightguard...@gmail.com> a
écrit
:
Mark, Pete and I discussed a little bit about the XML
config (from
Solder)
on IRC today. We quickly decided that we needed to move
over to the
mailing
list for more input, and to make things official.
As things currently exist in the Solder XML Config,
it's probably not
portable and would really need some of the changes in CDI
1.1 to work
properly. We also discussed throwing out the idea of
completely
configuring
beans via XML and using the XML config for other tasks such
as
applying
interceptors and the like via regex or similar ideas, in
other words
having
it being a subset of what currently exists today. What is
in Solder
is
very
similar to configuring beans via XML in Spring, and we feel
that
paradigm
has sailed.
I'm starting this thread to get some other ideas about
what we should
do
for XML config and also see what people think.
--
Jason Porter
http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate
Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception
Handling
PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
--
Charles Moulliard
Apache Committer / Sr. Pr. Consultant at FuseSource.com
Twitter : @cmoulliard
Blog : http://cmoulliard.blogspot.com
