Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <447B3F2A.7060804@nada.kth.se>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 20:36:26 +0200
From: Daniel Fagerstrom <danielf@nada.kth.se>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: Spring - conf/applicationContext.xml | global bean definitions
References: <44758B98.2070307@apache.org> <4475F5D8.6010508@apache.org>
 <447ACD3A.8050106@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <447ACD3A.8050106@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Reinhard Poetz skrev:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> 
>> It's already there :) In the webapp under samples/spring. The last time
>> I checked it (some weeks ago) it worked using:
>> http://localhost:8888/samples/spring.
> 
> Thanks, I found the samples and they still work :-)
>                                       - o -
> 
> I'm not perfectly happy with having the Spring configuration in 
> "conf/applicationContext.xml" which is relative to the sitemap it 
> belongs to. What about having applicationContext.xml in the same 
> directory as the sitemap as default?
> 
> Anyway, I'm not sure if I want to have Spring components at sitemap 
> level at all (at least in my applications). I would prefer having some 
> global mechanism, similar to WEB-INF/xconf for Spring beans. We could 
> introduce something like WEB-INF/spring/ into which you can put as many 
> bean definition files as you want.
> 
> Thinking further, Spring configurations could be placed in 
> META-INF/legacy/spring for a particular block. Daniel, any objections 
> from a Cocoon 3 POV?

I don't see any problems with that, it seem to be rather close to what 
we already do in the OSGi - Spring/ECM bridge. Why do you use "legacy" 
in the path?

/Daniel