Unreasonable to add individual bean-ref support to connectors?

[Cantor, Scott]

On 10/22/14, 3:54 AM, "Rod Widdowson" <rdw at steadingsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>I'd not be opposed, providing that we can keep things documentable.
>Thereagain, this is custom deployment so it doesn't have to be too
>documentable, just consistent which is my bitch about the filter language,
>but that¹s another story..  So I'd say +1, but I'd defer to Daniel.

I found it very simple to wire in DataSource, ResultsCache, and
MappingStrategy in the Relational connector. It's not as simple as I'd
like because it's a property reference instead of a property value, but
the code's not complicated.

Schema-wise, it was very natural to add <BeanManagedConnection> alongside
the other two and just have the bean ID as element content.

That really solves the problem of reusing connections across connectors
without having to do Spring wiring for everything or using
container-managed, which requires editing web.xml

> 
>That¹s not necessarily a bad thing - as I recall (and it's been a long
>time
>so I may be mis-remembering) one of the pain points with the full custom
>definition data connector implementation is that they *cannot* inherit
>global beans.

I don't know if that's true of what we have now, I think it was true with
the embedded beans element idea. But if it's still true, then yes, that's
another major point in favor.

-- Scott