This is important question. As far as I know none of our competitors use plain Spring XMLs. Disadvantage of this approach is that users have to learn new synthax for configuration.
But on the other hand this gives us independency of Spring format. It is very important from interoperability point of view. For instance, currently in GridGain .Net client we can do nothing with Spring XML configuration: we cannot load it, modify it, pass object model to Java, etc.. Therefore, we cannot take advantage of new dynamic cache start without introducing boilerplate code responsible for marshalling .Net cache config data model to bytes and unmarshalling it to Java data model in JVM. Also, our further non-Java users will have to learn Spring format which can be very uncommon for their platform and environment. I believe we will face lots of such problems when developing open-source integration with other platforms. So, I -1 for customSpring XML schemas, but +1 for thinking about new completely independent XML schema _in_addition_ to current Spring features. On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Sergi Vladykin <[email protected]> wrote: > -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 > > > > > > > > > >
