New feature proposal: Add injection interceptor scoped defau

[c.vidal]

Today, you have to specify the spring bean factory's JNDI name in each @Spring annotation:

@Spring(jndiName="myApp", bean="SomeBean")
private SomeBeanClass pojo;

But most spring based applications use only one bean factory, so it would be very convenient as much as less verbose (I'm lazy ;) ) to be able to specify the default JNDI name of the bean factory in one place. One such place could the SpringInjectionInterceptor. The JNDI name could of course be overriden on a per annotation basis. The default JNDI name could be specified in ejb3-interceptors-aop.xml the following way:

<interceptor class="org.jboss.spring.interceptor.SpringInjectionInterceptor">
 <!-- optionnal Spring bean factory default JNDI name -->
 <attribute name="defaultJndiName">myApp</attribute>
</interceptor>

<bind pointcut="execution(*->new(..))">
 <interceptor-ref name="org.jboss.spring.interceptor.SpringInjectionInterceptor"/>
</bind>

We then could avoid specifying the jndiName in the annotation:

@Spring(bean="SomeBean")
private SomeBeanClass pojo;

What do you think ?

Regards,

Cédric

[c.vidal]

Something went wrong with the thread title, it was meant to be called:

New feature proposal: Add injection interceptor scoped default Spring bean factory JNDI name.

[alesj]

"c.vidal" wrote:

What do you think ?

I thought of that before. Did really have the time to implement it - as it should be.

A single default jndi name isn't ok - since once you deploy more that one SpringDeployer app - it would put all BeanFactories under the same jndi name - not what we want.
It should be more deployment specific - something similar to EJB3 stuff for persistence context - single persistence context doesn't reqiure unit name.

But working on it.

[c.vidal]

"alesj" wrote:
A single default jndi name isn't ok - since once you deploy more that one SpringDeployer app - it would put all BeanFactories under the same jndi name - not what we want.

You're right, that's fine with me.

"alesj" wrote:
It should be more deployment specific - something similar to EJB3 stuff for persistence context - single persistence context doesn't reqiure unit name.

That would be great.

"alesj" wrote:
But working on to it.

Looking forward it ;)

Regards,

Cédric

[alesj]

SpringDeployer compatible with Spring2.0 final.
http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=3979096