-1 Agree with Dmitriy.
Sergi 2015-03-25 10:05 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>: > -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 > > > > > >
