Thanks Denis,
+1 for @Order. I like the idea.
regards
Taha
On Mar 8, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Denis Stepanov wrote:
> If you don't want "two ways" there is no need for the @Startup in the first
> place, your argument doesn't make much sense to me, I'm sorry. I thought that
> Tapestry motto is "co
If you don't want "two ways" there is no need for the @Startup in the first
place, your argument doesn't make much sense to me, I'm sorry. I thought that
Tapestry motto is "code less", so if there is a second way with less code, why
it's a bad thing?
Steve suggested on the mailing list the same
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 09:44:50 -0300, Denis Stepanov
wrote:
I can change it to use the @Order, but I'm not sure Tapestry devs are
interested or even care to have it.
Your wording makes it seem the Tapestry committers are ignoring user
suggestions or patches. That isn't the case. Can't they
I can change it to use the @Order, but I'm not sure Tapestry devs are
interested or even care to have it.
Denis
Mar 8, 2012 v 4:17 AM, Steve Eynon (Commented) (JIRA):
>
>[
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1842?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpan
> Doesn't contributing to the RegistryStartup service, which has an ordered
> configuration, does exactly what's been asked here?
Yes it does, but it is a lot messier, you need an inner class, and so on.
Specialy when you are using @Startup and then you need an order.
Whole purpose of the @Star
If I remember correctly, we had this discussion already. IMO, @Startup
shouldn't have any order. If you need some kind of order, do it as Thiago
suggested or build your own service with ordered configuration which you
inject into a startup method.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Thiago H. de Paula
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 10:32:58 -0300, Dragan Sahpaski (Commented) (JIRA)
wrote:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1842?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13223254#comment-13223254
]
Dragan Sahpaski commented on TAP5-1842:
