On 25/06/2010 15:55, Simone Tripodi wrote: > Hi all, > I'm here to call a new vote to define our design direction. Some > threads ago on this ML, Pid and I were discussing about the use, or > not, of Java metadata Annotations to enhance OAuth messages and > tokens. > > Pros: > * marshallers/unmarshallers to/from strings could be auto-generated > using the APT; > * the calculation of the base string (just an example) is parameter agnostic.
I'm not dead set against incorporating annotations into Amber, but I think the same goal /in this case/ can be achieved with less complexity. What are the use cases which these annotations would be a good solution for? > Cons: > * not so hard writing parsers (JavaCC? AntLR? XText?) and serializers; > * not so hard writing the base string algorithm * non-trivial code required to generate a base string using this method > > So please cast your votes in favor of > > [] Pro Annotations [x] Cons Annotations p > The vote will stay open for the next 72 hours. It would be nice if the > choice comes with a justification, so everybody can take care about > someone else's considerations. > > My vote if > > [X] Pro Annotations > > I already implemented the base string calculus based only on metadata > discovery and I didn't take care about the parameter retrieving > criteria. I'd love to have a choice to see Annotations in action on > compile-time :P > > Cheers, have a nice weekend, > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
