-1 I don't agree from usability standpoint. I like our default Spring config syntax because it does not require learning of our XML syntax. The less user has to learn, the better.
D. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Alexey Goncharuk <[email protected]> wrote: > +1. Totally agree with Alexey on this idea. > > 2015-03-24 20:45 GMT-07:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <[email protected]>: > > > Hi! > > > > What do you think about creating custom Spring XML schema? > > > > For example Spring AMQP has its own schema that looks like: > > > > <rabbit:connection-factory id="connectionFactory" /> > > > > <rabbit:template id="amqpTemplate" connection-factory="connectionFactory" > > exchange="myExchange" routing-key="foo.bar"/> > > > > <rabbit:admin connection-factory="connectionFactory" /> > > > > <rabbit:queue name="myQueue" /> > > > > <rabbit:topic-exchange name="myExchange"> > > <rabbit:bindings> > > <rabbit:binding queue="myQueue" pattern="foo.*" /> > > </rabbit:bindings> > > </rabbit:topic-exchange> > > > > We could have something similar for Ignite. That will make Ignite Spring > > XML configs much smaller. > > No need to use full class names. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -- > > Alexey Kuznetsov > > GridGain Systems > > www.gridgain.com > > >
