<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Just getting to some old threads...<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/17/15 12:21 PM, Cantor, Scott
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:E2382159-6AA7-4AD2-864D-4DE9743ED7E8@osu.edu"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I think the beans are declared in part because of the SWF docs. To enable SWF you have to override the default handler mapping beans, and I think Chad just added in the beans that are declared normally by Spring that would be removed by the explicit mapping bean (thus the comment "Have to enumerate them all explicitly b/c we're overriding the built-in defaults.").</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that was actually me, from the original testbed. And your
interpretation is correct: Spring MVC declares certain impls as
defaults if not otherwise wired. See spring-webmvc jar, resource
org.springframework.web.servlet.DispatcherServlet.properties, where
it declares these defaults:<br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>org.springframework.web.servlet.HandlerMapping=org.springframework.web.servlet.handler.BeanNameUrlHandlerMapping,\</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.annotation.DefaultAnnotationHandlerMapping</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>org.springframework.web.servlet.HandlerAdapter=org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.HttpRequestHandlerAdapter,\</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.SimpleControllerHandlerAdapter,\</tt><tt><br>
</tt><tt>
org.springframework.web.servlet.mvc.annotation.AnnotationMethodHandlerAdapter</tt><tt><br>
</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
So my reason for declaring them all in the original testbed wiring
was nothing other than "add the SWF ones, but keep the other
defaults the same". And of course the testbed SP is using
annotations, so that one actually needed to be there anyway.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>