Changes to web flow action proposal

[Ian Young]

On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:43, Brent Putman <putmanb at georgetown.edu> wrote:

> Having said all that though... Autowiring isn't necessarily the best way to solve the concerns we
> were discussing today with respect to wiring the contexts and/or requests/responses: cleaning up the
> beans file, reducing noise, etc.  Details later, but the advance preview is (at least): 1) bean
> definition inheritance 2) BeanPostProcessors

Sounds like a positive direction to me.  I looked into this for another activity a while back, and came to the conclusion that autowiring was a bit broad brush and intended for some specific use cases I didn't have.  I'm also now fairly nervous about anything that goes in at the <beans> level because the question of when things apply to the context and when just to the specific configuration file seems fairly opaque and has lead to some surprises, for me at least.

I make heavy use of bean definition inheritance in the UKf MDA deployment, and it seems to work pretty well for this kind of thing.  There are, again, some surprises around the area of which things are inherited and which are not but it seems fairly usable.

BeanPostProcessor beans seemed like they would really simplify things, but I didn't actually get round to trying it.  The other thing available seemed to be the equivalent at the factory level, which allow you to alter the bean definitions rather than the beans themselves; did you look at that at all?

	-- Ian



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4813 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/dev/attachments/20130420/6625ea8f/attachment-0001.bin