Hi,
for me moving it into core is good.
But we could use this also in a server side application (and if Spring
or another JSR-250 compliant library is already used there) so
attention on the name we choose (to avoid confusion), but for me one
name is good as another.
> Rename @WTKX to @BXML
For me is the same, but I don't think that BXML is more
readable/simple to understand that WTKX, also when the default
extension for related files in wtkx.
Do you like "PivotResource" ?
> Of course, another thing to consider is that "BeanSerializer" and "bx" are a
> lot easier to say than "WTKXSerializer" and "wtkx".
Are you sure ? To me sound similar, and "BeanSerializer" could be too
much general (maybe confused with other libraries), but it's a
question of taste.
> There is a question of what prefix to use for the internal processing
> namespace (currently "wtkx"). Should this continue to be "wtkx" for WTKX
> files, or should it be something more generic ("bxml", "bx", "jbx", etc.)?
> This prefix could also be used as a generic file extension for bean markup
> files when a more appropriate extension is not available.
So why not "pivot" (or a compressed form of it like "p" or "piv") ?
General and directly related to Pivot, but in some cases maybe this
could generate confusion like "a Pivot Application" or "a Pivot
resource".
> it is also possible that simply using .xml as a standard file extension would
> be best, since that covers all cases and doesn't require developers to map
> XML syntax highlighter templates to a multitude of custom extensions.
yes, probably this is a good thing.
> So I will move this ticket to 2.0.
Probably is better, so we have more time to think/rewrite it better,
without the need to keep backward compatibility.
But do you think to start to put something in the 1.5.x release (new
content, without changing the existing classes), and deprecate the old
?
Bye,
Sandro
