Am 20.05.2012 19:46 schrieb "Hervé BOUTEMY" <herve.bout...@free.fr>: > > here, the end-user is a plugin developer, then someone who should be able to > create a (Plexus) component when necessary > > Yes, I liked @Component too but as soon as you write a component and inject > somponents inside it, you discover the discrepency: the more I work on this, > the more I discover these little discrepencies that lost me for a long time.
> Notice that the target is JSR330 @Inject. > Is it too early to use @Inject? If @Inject supports all our use cases: go for it. It's standard, it's available. Why wait? Just my 2 cents. Best regards Ansgar > > Le dimanche 20 mai 2012 14:48:34 Olivier Lamy a écrit : > > Perso, I prefer @Component more "auto documented" name. > > IMHO The goal is to hide to end user what is used in core so why using > > plexus naming. > > > > 2012/5/20 Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr>: > > > of course, +1 since we discussed it :) > > > > > > but thinking once more at it, I just found that @Component should be > > > renamed to @Requirement, to match corresponding plexus annotation, isn't > > > it? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > Le dimanche 20 mai 2012 09:00:05 Olivier Lamy a écrit : > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> After discussion on irc with Hervé, I think role attribute in > > >> @Component can be of type Class<?> rather than String. > > >> > > >> @Component( role = ArtifactMetadataSource.class, roleHint = "maven" ) > > >> protected ArtifactMetadataSource artifactMetadataSource; > > >> > > >> Any objections on this change ? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >
