ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ignite custom Spring XML schema
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:02:35 GMT
-1

Agree with Dmitriy.

Sergi

2015-03-25 10:05 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:

> -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 <agoncharuk@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1. Totally agree with Alexey on this idea.
> >
> > 2015-03-24 20:45 GMT-07:00 Alexey Kuznetsov <akuznetsov@gridgain.com>:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message