In favor of existing #setCacheOperationSources(CacheOperationSource...)
Also polish Javadoc throughout, replacing stale references to
CacheDefinitionSource where appropriate as well as other minor changes
Facilitates type-safe programmatic configuration from @Bean methods:
@Bean
public CacheManager cacheManager() {
SimpleCacheManager cm = new SimpleCacheManager();
cm.setCaches(Arrays.asList(
new ConcurrentMapCache("default"),
new ConcurrentMapCache("primary"),
new ConcurrentMapCache("secondary")
));
return cm;
}
Prior to this change, the code above would have raised errors on the
Arrays.asList() call because it returns a Collection<? extends Cache>
as opposed to Collection<Cache>.
After this change, AbstractCacheManager expects
Collection<? extends Cache> throughout.
This was removed once previously but accidentally re-introduced later.
The 'correct' version of spring-cache-3.1.xsd lives in spring-context
as opposed to here in spring-context-support.
Also placed .gitignore file within src/main/resources such that the
now-empty directory does not get pruned in git environments, which will
otherwise cause 'missing source folder' errors within Eclipse/IDEA.
Refactored getConfig => getApplicationContext such that subclasses have
control over the type of ApplicationContext used by the base class
tests. Done in anticipation of @EnableCaching tests that will favor use
of AnnotationConfigApplicationContext
Also updated all use of ClassPathXmlApplictionContext to
GenericXmlApplicationContext, which is generally preferred.
There was some question about whether enabling subclass proxies via
proxyTargetClass / proxy-target-class settings would break annotation-
based demarcation of joinpoints due to inability to discover those
annotations in various scenarios. The provided tests prove that in
any conceivable case, these annotations (@Transactional, at least)
are discovered in a consistent fashion, meaning that switching proxy
strategies should be transparent to the application and honor
intended annotation semantics.
Since dynamic attributes were allowed in Spring 3, it raised the
possibility to specify a type attribute on a number of the form tags.
Where it makes sense (see below) that attribute is now rejected
and reversely where it makes sense it is accepted.
InputTag allows types other than "text" but rejects type="radio" or
type="checkbox" since there is a good reason for those to be used
only in conjunction with the appropriate form library tags.
Other HTML input tags such as PasswordTag, HiddenInputTag,
Checkbox(es)Tag and RadioBox(es)Tag check the dynamic attributes
and reject them if they contain a type attribute since.
Chris Beams
Sam Brannen
Juergen Hoeller
Rossen Stoyanchev
Costin Leau
Arjen Poutsma