Re: [picocontainer-dev] Default XML for Nano 2?

--- Michael Rimov <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi guys,
> 
> I seem to recall a conversation with Mauro a while
> back that said that the
> default XML container builder might be better off
> using XStream container
> builder as the default....

basically xstream comes only to play when we define
constants - so technically those builders are mostly
the same. 

> I wanted to ask.... is that something that you guys
> plan on doing for Nano 2?
> (I don't normally use the XML Container Builder, but
> while testing, I noticed
> some behavior differences between the groovy
> container builder and the XML
> container builder and wanted to know what the plans
> were for XML Container
> Builder before I dove into it.)

it's very diffucult to offer the same flexibility
with xml, as with groovy, without makin syntax really
awfull - so sometimes I myself have to fallback to 
groovy configuration ( for example, I have need for
just certain object to be hotswappable - currently
there is no sane way to  define such behaviour.

and as we also have jndi exposing / jndi references,
as well as dependencies on  jndi / jmx stored params 
( done via parameters )  syntax definitely needs
expansion.

Maybe we can borrow some ideas  from xwork 
configuration...

regards,

----[ Konstantin Pribluda http://www.pribluda.de ]----------------
JTec quality components: http://www.pribluda.de/projects/


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email