commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Germuska <>
Subject Re: [chain] Configuration idea
Date Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:00:20 GMT
At 10:27 AM -0500 10/21/04, Joe Germuska wrote:
>At 10:31 AM -0400 10/21/04, Sean Schofield wrote:
>>I had an idea about how we could improve the default configuration of
>>commons-chain.  It would be nice if we could have the following
>>   <chains>
>>     <chain name="foobar.chain">
>>       <command name="foo" className="Foo"/>
>>       <command name="bar" className="Bar"/>
>>     </chain>
>>     <chain name="biz.chain">
>>       <chain name="foobar.chain">
>>       <command name="biz" className="Biz"/>
>>     </chain>
>>   </chains>
>I think it's basically a good idea, although I'd want a different 
>attribute for references; reusing "name" with the same element and 
>different semantics would be pretty confusing.
>How about "ref"?
>     <chain name="biz.chain">
>       <chain ref="foobar.chain">
>       <command name="biz" className="Biz"/>
>     </chain>

Craig has since responded on this issue pointing out that it can be 
done.  However, I have had in the back of my head a bit of a nagging 
concern that the XML syntax for commons-chain is verbose, if not 
confusing.   Then again, I haven't set out to make a new chain myself 
yet, so I don't have a good feel about just how serious the issue is.

So, Craig -- would you object to something like the above, which is 
more concise, even though there is another way to do it?  How about 
anyone else who has been interested in Chain?  Is it too early to 
optimize the config syntax?

Joe Germuska       
"In fact, when I die, if I don't hear 'A Love Supreme,' I'll turn 
back; I'll know I'm in the wrong place."
    - Carlos Santana
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message