+1 for some R&D time. I think this could turn out to be *really* cool.
One comment I have about classpath scanning is that *if* it turns out
to be a nightmare, you could go the route of Hibernate where you have
to register what annotated pages you want to support. ex:
public class MyWebApplication extends Application {
public void init() {
registerAnnotatedWebPage(MyWebPage.class);
registerAnnotatedWebPage(SecondPage.class);
..etc..
}
}
Just a thought. I don't want to see the whole idea thrown out *just
because* of classpath scanning. That's a whole separate issue IMO.
On Jan 10, 2008 9:08 AM, Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +10 for exploring, you just never know what handy feature turns up:) I
> meant to say that to in my previous mail.
>
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > Having the ability to specify the mount with the page instead of a
> > central location may be interesting. How is this different from
> > specifying to what table an entity is retrieved from? I think having
> > all the things that relate to a specific page in one place is an
> > advantage.
> >
> > I'm not sure what deserved this outburst, but I think *EXPLORING* the
> > possibility and the consequences of having a mount-annotation are
> > worth it. Just saying you don't like it without arguments or throwing
> > some unrelated arguments around just doesn't cut it. If you don't like
> > it, you don't have to use it.
> >
> > So instead of the "I don't like ..." arguments, please answer the
> > question: What issues would we run into if we were going to implement
> > it? There are probably tons of issues associated with it, for instance
> > (which didn't take me long to come up with):
> >
> > Pro's:
> > - a long list of mounts becomes unmanagable
> > - easy to add a mount: work on a page, slap on the annotation and you
> > have your mount done
> > - locality of the configuration
> >
> > Con's
> > - distributed configuration, so hard to see the 'big picture' (though
> > a mounts page listing all mounts would help)
> > - scanning of classpath at startup (though spring, struts, etc are
> > doing that already)
> > - multiple mounts at same position harder to detect, though that is
> > already possible.
> >
> > Open questions:
> > - annotated page impossible?
> > - specifying the URL encoding strategy
> > - multiple mounts for the same page
> > - package mounting?
> > - can we override the annotated mount?
> > - how do we work with pages contributed using jars, could we disable
> > the annotated mounts and provide our own?
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On Jan 10, 2008 2:28 PM, Eduardo Ito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree...
> >>
> >> What is the *advantage* of putting the mount definition in an annotation?
> >> Following the same pattern, we would create a bunch of annotations
> >> like @PageSettings, @HomePage, etc... argh!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/10/08, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I suggest we take a look at annotations for:
> >>>> * the mount with a page
> >>>>
> >>> A disadvantage to doing that imho is that you'll have those
> >>> definitions scattered throughout. Right now we steer people to do it
> >>> in one place.
> >>>
> >>> Eelco
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Eduardo Issao Ito
> >> Summa Technologies
> >>
> >> "Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end"
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Nino Martinez Wael
> Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
> http://www.jayway.dk
> +45 2936 7684
>
>
