On 2012-09-10 8:25 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
This is what I would use non-compiled resources for as well.
If I needed to CDI-enable some code without using annotations, I would use the
portable extension API directly.
Yes and no. In my opinion this is generic enough to warrant a
configurable implementation, rather than producing a code template that
would be copied and pasted around. I understand that all of us can
master the fine points of writing an extension, but a configurable
solution may be easier for the average developer.
On 7 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Why i would like to use files (i find xml too verbose) is for constants
(uri for instance) or alternative/interceptor (as mentionned)
Today i find other use case the translation of bad design
...just my opinion maybe
Le 7 sept. 2012 23:01, "Jason Porter" <lightguard...@gmail.com> a écrit :
Mark, Pete and I discussed a little bit about the XML config (from Solder)
on IRC today. We quickly decided that we needed to move over to the mailing
list for more input, and to make things official.
As things currently exist in the Solder XML Config, it's probably not
portable and would really need some of the changes in CDI 1.1 to work
properly. We also discussed throwing out the idea of completely configuring
beans via XML and using the XML config for other tasks such as applying
interceptors and the like via regex or similar ideas, in other words having
it being a subset of what currently exists today. What is in Solder is very
similar to configuring beans via XML in Spring, and we feel that paradigm
has sailed.
I'm starting this thread to get some other ideas about what we should do
for XML config and also see what people think.
--
Jason Porter
http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/lightguardjp
Software Engineer
Open Source Advocate
Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
PGP key id: 926CCFF5
PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
