urubatan
Oct 25th, 2004, 01:31 PM
is there a reason to "autowire by type" be used instead of "autowire by name" in the AbstractPathMapHandlerMapping/CommonsPathMapHandlerMapping?
and it is verifying dependencies too, this is a problem if you want to map with attributes a MultiActionController
and is a problem too, when like in the application I'm working on, I have just one dao implementation (using Hibernate and QBE) and just a property in this dao specifies what class it should work with.
I solved my problem for now, changing the line 78 of AbstractPathMapHandlerMapping to:
Object handler = beanFactory.autowire(handlerClass, AutowireCapableBeanFactory.AUTOWIRE_BY_NAME, false);
what do you think about providing at least a configuration for this properties, so the user can choose the behavior of this class?
and it is verifying dependencies too, this is a problem if you want to map with attributes a MultiActionController
and is a problem too, when like in the application I'm working on, I have just one dao implementation (using Hibernate and QBE) and just a property in this dao specifies what class it should work with.
I solved my problem for now, changing the line 78 of AbstractPathMapHandlerMapping to:
Object handler = beanFactory.autowire(handlerClass, AutowireCapableBeanFactory.AUTOWIRE_BY_NAME, false);
what do you think about providing at least a configuration for this properties, so the user can choose the behavior of this class?