ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ignite custom Spring XML schema
Date Thu, 16 Apr 2015 05:16:55 GMT
>From what I can tell, this is standard Spring. No changes required to
Ignite, right?

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:

> It seems way cleaner! And considering that a DSL will require some extra
> work
> to work on the language and create the builder classes - perhaps going your
> way would be more efficient.
>
> Thanks!
>   Cos
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 04:34PM, Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> > How about to use Spring *"http://www.springframework.org/schema/p
> > <http://www.springframework.org/schema/p>"* ?
> >
> > With this schema XML will be like this:
> >
> > <bean class="org.apache.ignite.configuration.CacheConfiguration"
> >       p:name="test-cache"
> >       p:backups="1"
> >       p:cacheMode="PARTITIONED"
> >       p:atomicityMode="ATOMIC"
> >       p:preloadMode="SYNC"
> >       p:startSize="3000000">
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Kuznetsov
> > GridGain Systems
> > www.gridgain.com
>

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