Is this issue still on the table? I haven't seen any specifics. In
general I'd prefer to stay away from G specific stuff and leave them
in deployment plans. However, if we make them available they should
be totally optional and users can make their own choices.
On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:
What are people's thoughts on annotation support we should provide
in Geronimo 2.0? I'm not referring to the spec annotations, but
container specific annotations (configuration in our g-deployment
plans). From a users perspective, our deployment plans are massive
and one of the options to simply using them is through annotations.
Is this something people agree on?
If so, then we need to have the XDoclet / JSR-175 debate. From my
viewpoint, XDoclet is a legacy technology with the introduction of
JSR-175. There are misconceptions that XDoclet still plays a role
in that its purpose is a code-generation facility and JSR-175
cannot be used for this purpose is not the case. With JSR-175 and
Sun's APT code/xml generation can be done as well. (Even though
its much more complex to do). I'd like to provide XDoclet support
in Geronimo 2.0 as its the easier solution, however my concern is
that JEE 5 Developers will not want to deal with mixed type
annotations. Do people see this as a valid concern? Or should our
approach be Geronimo Specific 175 Annotations, that can either
generate xml or introspected during runtime as an alternative
dealing directly with the deployment plans.
-sachin
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
