Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
...
I do think that we went far too far.
wdyt ?
Let me first say that I really liked the idea of making configuration of
ApacheDS simpler form a user (e.g. administrator) perspective. The xbean
approach did a good job here, the files are shorter and more expressive.
Unfortunately, some ports of the configuration are comparable
complicated to the 1.0 pure Spring world (or even more complex).
For instance:
...
<!-- The desired quality-of-protection, used by DIGEST-MD5 and
GSSAPI. -->
<saslQop>
<value
xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";>auth</value>
<value
xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";>auth-int</value>
<value
xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans";>auth-conf</value>
</saslQop>
...
Although it is probably easy to complete the xbean configuration and
reduce such parts. This should happen at least, because we easily loose
the simplification we achieved.
The question I asked myself when xbean was introduced: Isn't it possible
to use our own namespace and use pure Spring 2.0 functionality for
that to make configuration easier? This has been done with transactions,
AOP etc. in Spring itself.
Perhaps we can obtain a comparable result with native Spring features,
and avoid the dependency to xbean.
http://static.springframework.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/extensible-xml.html
Whether this will conflict with Emmanuel's requirement to make
configuration easier to parse/edit with Studio -- I have not thought
about that yet.
Greetings from Hamburg,
Stefan
