On 12/12/06, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <action name="..." class="Spring:SpringBeanName" /> > > or something like that to kind of indicate to a developer, "Hey, this > isn't a standard java class name." > Good point. I like this idea more because it would allow us to use multiple object factories simultaneously. You know, you should make an object factory that parses prefixes to delegate to the proper object factory... :)
As it stands, I believe the code could access multiple factories without syntactic sugar. If the class attribute is not in the catalog, then the system will instantiate it as a class reference. If more object factories were in play, each could be checked in turn, and finally the usual object factory, "new", would be tried. My concern would be that a prefix would have us starting to add more red tape again. A casual passerby might not realize at first that the application is injecting classes from Spring, but the developers working on the code certainly do. It's not a trivial design decision. If all of my Actions are being injected, then a prefix adds no information. It's just six more characters to type (and possibliy mistype) in each and every attriibute. We'd just be saying "smurf smurf smurf" :) -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
