It shouldn't be an all-or-nothing solution...
On 3/27/06,
Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, yes,
it's something we can discuss about - but annotations do have some
merits as well.
If the configuration is something that will change with the code
itself, it doesn't make much sense to have it externally. In any case,
it's possible to use a mixed approach without a problem.
regards,
Martin
On 3/27/06, Enrique Medina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> We have already discussed it directly, but I would like to stress my
> skepticism about the convenience to go back again to put configuration stuff
> in code, abandoning XML files.
>
> XML configuration files do quite well their job and were designed to avoid
> coupling parametrization stuff in code. Now it seems we return to the point
> were we started. It seems more a response to .NET than real desirable
> functionality, as we already had it with external configuration files.
>
> Regards,
> Enrique Medina.
>
>
> On 3/27/06, Martin Marinschek < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi *,
> >
> > Sylvain and me want to play around with 1.5 features a little -
> > annotations and whatever there is. Particularly, we want to build a
> > maven-plugin which creates the faces-config.xml (both managed-beans
> > and navigation rules) file automatically from annotations.
> >
> > We considered a new subdirectory under tomahawk and maven-plugins for
> > this - a directory, which would not be included in the normal build,
> > but which would have to be built separately.
> >
> > The directory under tomahawk might be called sandbox15.
> >
> > Comments - suggestions - alternatives?
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
