exabrial wrote > > The only thing I'm picky about is having "one way" of specifying the data. > Having multiple ways to specify the same thing will likely confuse > newcowers: > > <Configuration> > <AsynchronousPool> > CorePoolSize = 10 > > <Configuration> > AsynchronousPool.CorePoolSize = 10 >
+1 for having "one way" of specifying the data. 0 for aliases - thinking not having aliases might be better for clarity i.e not having "pojocontexts,pojos" and just have one name ? For example, if you are to email an admin, to add certain property to "pojocontexts" but if the admin is only aware of "pojos" (it might be a little confusing ?) +1 for "grep"able property names. As for naming of the elements is concerned, the word "context" is a little "programmer"ish and not towards admins Would losing the "context" suffix be better ? So we would just be having names like App, Module,Beans.. or otherwise like AppConfig,ModuleConfig.. ? +1 towards the naming of the element as 'Properties' rather than 'Configuration' -for reinforcing the syntax. +1 for staying with properties (when it comes to properties vs pure xml with xsd ). Properties look a lot cleaner/extensible. Better documentation/validation might help. If we are staying with properties, what kind of validations could be added ? -Vishwa -- View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-New-descriptor-format-tp4657040p4657130.html Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
