Spring shorthand, again

[Cantor, Scott]

> At least in my distribution, it literally says that in a comment.  I would be
> perfectly fine with that.

But that's what I did...so I don't understand the suggestion to change something. I considered what Daniel suggested, and we could do that, but I did it this way to basically emulate what seemed like an accepted approach elsewhere.

> It’s the injection of properties and composition of configuration files that
> seems to be getting people, but I’ll carry that message back.

I'm just saying that except for errors and accidents of timing, pretty much all the properties with Spring defaults have those same defaults already shown in the property files. There's no conflict or "hiding" of anything. There are some rough edges like the certificate/trust paths because of the problems defaulting those, where as boolean and numeric data can be defaulted cleanly.

One problem IMHO is the bad locality of reference between the properties and where they're used. The fix for that is not to use properties. And I'm not against that idea, personally. I think it works badly for certain areas of the system, and the resolver is a big one.

-- Scott