I will harp once again on the beauty of DSLs ;)
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:21AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
