> What I meant is that with some effort, instead of the convention plugin > providing both Configuration and Mapping/Invocation is could be split into > two: a plugin that provides config via annotation and a plugin that provides > mapping & invocation conventions. If that were the case then developers > could separately chose the configuration approach (annotation or xml) and > the mapping and invocation approach (plain or restful). It was just an > idea. >
I am still thinking about this one, the advantages of splitting the automagic action mapping based on default from the annotations is not really clear to me yet. > (And yes, with the right settings, REST can invoke actions defined in XML > config when they have the appropriate methods as all action/controller > definitions come from same Configuration instance). In that case then REST should continue to be in it's own plugin. I don't know where Paul gets those ideas :). musachy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
