ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Ignite custom Spring XML schema
Date Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:21:20 GMT
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 <sergi.vladykin@gmail.com>
wrote:

> -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