Oh, I see.  I thought he meant that he would not allow them to leave out the
id.  I can see that one going either way.  Either way, it's "magical" and
would have to be documented.  We could do the defaulting both ways if one or
the other is left out.

-----Original Message-----
From: Knut Wannheden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:02 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New convention?

I think Howard's idea was rather to infer the interface from the
<module>'s "package" and the <service-point>'s "id" attributes. But I
guess both ways are really possible.

--knut

On 7/31/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not default the id?  I almost always use the "simple" name of the
> interface for my service ids and that would save me some typing.  From
what
> I've seen of postings on the list, a lot of other folks use the same
> notation.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:53 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: New convention?
>
> I'd leave as <service id="Foo">, default the interface, default the
> builder, etc.  Otherwise good idea.
>
> On 7/30/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > How about this?  You can define a service point with nothing but the
> > interface!  Consider this example:
> >
> > <service interface="com.myco.service.MyService" />
> >
> > First, HiveMind will default the service point id to "MyService."  Then,
> > HiveMind will look for a default implementation class called
> > "com.myco.service.impl.MyServiceImpl" and try to use BuilderFactory to
> build
> > a default, autowired instance.  I've found that this is my typical
> scenario.
> > This way, you can cut out a LOT of XML.  What do you think?
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> TWD Consulting, Inc.
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
> Creator, Apache HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work.  http://howardlewisship.com
>
>
>


Reply via email to