On Thu, June 8, 2006 2:46 pm, Craig McClanahan wrote: > Always slow to get on the latest bandwagon, eh Frank :-)
Who, what, me?!? Nnnnnaaaahhhhhh! (hey, you were the last Ant vs. Maven holdout, I was happy I wasn't the only one... you left me man!! LOL) > That being said, XML configuration files are going out of fashion, at > least > among the developers who speak out a lot :-). Yeah, I noticed that. :) I'll be there in 5 years or so :) I personally think this is the case because there are some *bad* XML config files around. I think when done right they are still preferable in most cases. However... > Here's my two cents on when > I > like to use annotations, and when I don't. > > * Annotations are a good idea when the configuration concept is directly > related to how you code your source. Examples include beans used > in a webapp (it really matters whether you're going to store it in > request > scope or session scope or application scope), transactional settings > on an EJB, and so on. Storing the actual annotation in the source code > reduces the chances that some sysadmin installing your application might > accidentally or inadvertently change the scope setting, without > understanding > that they just broke your code. Definitely fair poins... and I have to admit, looking at EJB3 as an example, I in fact *love* annotations! EJB's (pre-EJB3) are probably the best example IMO of where config files can go wrong. > * Annotations are not a good idea when the configuration concept should > not be a concern of the person actually writing the code. In webapps, > for > example, I don't believe in configuring page navigation rules (Struts > forwards, > JSF navigation rules and cases, etc) directly into the action methods. > The > actions should describe what happened, not where to go next -- and this > is > something I personally don't care for, even at the code level, the way > that > WW2 does Results (or Spring MVC does ModelAndView) that combine > the two concerns together. But that's a separate issue from whether > the encoding should be with annotations or not :-). I agree with you here too. I remember 5 years or so ago before I started using Struts, we built our own framework here, and one of the really nice things about it is that all the navigations rules were in a database... we could literally change the flow of the application on the fly (a few exceptions, as you might expect, but generally true). Separating navigation rules and such from the code I agree is probably not the right use for annotations. Good thoughts... I think we agree here almost entirely :) I like your differentiation too... I think when I said I wasn't sold on annotations yet I may have been subconsciously thinking of the things we both think may not be the best use for them. Especially given EJB3, where I do really see where they make life better, maybe I'm a little more on the bandwagon than I thought already! :-) > Craig Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
