You can always post a JIRA asking for that.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Eli Doran <e...@elidoran.com> wrote:
> I am not using Tapestry web framework (which means I'd have everything in
> my App's module, and its submodules, to keep it all together.) This means
> the "other startup methods" are in other modules.
>
> I work with a lot of modules which run together in different combinations.
> They contribute to the startup chain with things they need to run at
> startup. Occasionally, a module relies on another module and needs to run
> after it. I use the ordering constraint in the contribution method for the
> startup chain so I can organize them.
>
> Accepting the ordering constraint in the @Startup annotation would be a
> nicety. It would also make it consistent with the functionality of the
> contribution method.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Michael Gentry <mgen...@masslight.net
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Eli,
> >
> > This would be clever, but you can always have a single @Startup method
> that
> > then calls all of your other startup methods in the order you want. In
> > some ways, I think this is easier to read/understand. The startup order
> is
> > clearly defined in a single spot instead of having to go decipher all
> > "before:" and "after:" modifiers on other methods.
> >
> > mrg
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Eli Doran <e...@elidoran.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I like the simplicity of using the @Startup annotation compared to the
> > > startup contribution method.
> > >
> > > However, it doesn't have the ability to order its execution as in the
> > > contribution method.
> > >
> > > It seems it would be a simple thing to accept the ordering constraint
> in
> > > the annotation like:
> > >
> > > > @Startup("before:SomeOtherStartupOperation")
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you all think?
> > >
> >
>
--
Thiago
