Hi,
Sorry for starting another thread (I deleted the initial thread and
had to start another one).
From: Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Looks cool. Only question I have is why the "G" prefix on
annotations other than GBean?
I will drop the "G" prefix on annotations other than GBean; it is
indeed better.
From: David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have a couple of suggestions and questions.....
1. I think we should try harder to separate the identification of a
constructor parameter as attribute or reference from identifying
its name. So, I think we should use the java6 and xbean
@ParameterName annotations for names and something else for
references if necessary.
It seems to me that xbean only defines a @ParameterNames annotation,
which I think is quite efficient only when the number of parameters
is small. The need of a @ParameterName annotation, targeting a
parameter and not a constructor or method, really emerges when the
number of parameters increases.
If you want, I can add a @ParameterName annotation to xbean-reflect
instead of adding it to geronimo-kernel.
2. I'm pretty sure identifying something as an attribute isn't
necessary.
I partially agree: out-of-the-box attributes are added based on the
getters and setters of the GBean class. These attributes are defined
as non-persistent and non-manageable. It should be possible to turn
them persistent and manageable via an annotation. This is the purpose
of @Attribute which looks like this:
@Documented
@Retention(value = RUNTIME)
@Target(value = {METHOD})
public @interface Attribute {
boolean manageable() default true;
}
It now appears to me that @Attribute is poorly chosen and that
@Persistent may be more appropriate.
3. I think we should think long and hard if we really need to
identify references specifically. Can we get by with deciding how
to treat them based on what is in the plan?
Based on the GBeanData passed in to GBeanInstance, we can tell if an
attribute should be set to a GBeanReference or a simple value. What
does not seem possible is a way to derive the j2eeType of the target
of a GBeanReference as there is no reliable way of retrieving the
GBeanInfo of a class. Without such a reliable mechanism, I am not
sure how to remove the explicit configuration of references having a
specific j2eeType.
4. Can the GBean annotation be optional? I hope so :-) (e.g.
default j2eeType=GBean, default name = class name)
It is now optional :)
While you are looking at this..... I think we may want to move
towards considering the basic unit of geronimo assembly as the
module/plugin rather than the gbean. This may have repercussions
on some things the admin console can do that add or remove gbeans
from a module, but I've always looked at those actions rather
sceptically. Doing both changes at once may be too big a jump but
IMO if you see a way to progress more quickly by moving towards
this additional goal I'd support it.
Could you please explain a little bit more as I do not understand
what you have in mind?
Thanks for the feedback!
Gianny
