Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:15:51 +0000
From: Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
To: dev@ignite.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Ignite custom Spring XML schema
Message-ID: <20150325231551.GT1657@boudnik.org>
References: 
 <CALH+G9rb1V7ONh_+Fr54Dj1KVFWWMJoU2EODR7sVt8+ea68OYQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABDss3h_gkkWEFfToUytGw41fbRfyaHwAn=87yNeitxCy5tHvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoVVdPoTwPTb0jdiOKwyubfzr5NmhjUwmDV_HMw=Navi2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+eZwrH+YUx-XR18vr88JWYFmqweGSbFPfVtBCYnxmiLgFKEew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGt6o8kMLQe9UhTzzfeOppb1uROzUJQYdUOmWjEpTOF0VqaxgA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGt6o8kMLQe9UhTzzfeOppb1uROzUJQYdUOmWjEpTOF0VqaxgA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

I will harp once again on the beauty of DSLs ;)

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:21AM, Vladimir Ozerov wrote:
> 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >