2008/12/1 Claus Ibsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi James
>
> Maybe you dot get to much sleep at nights now ;)
> But I had to do a 2nd pass to read and understand your mail.
:)
> Are you suggesting that we can merge the uri and ref @annotation
> attribute and this imply a single attribute that supports both?
Yes. With annotations, lots of them only take a URI; so we can use a
default value parameter
e.g.
@Produce("jms:someQueue")
@Consume("ref:someName");
> If so what should be the name of this attribute?
if in doubt, uri - but with annotations which have no over values it
can be value()
> I currently like that the uri / ref style as you are in no doubt what
> they do. But is there a tremendous difference in the code base to
> support both?
>
> I was wondering if we should do a stratety as
> - look in registry first, if match use it
> - if no match create an endpoint with the provided text
Thats what we do anyway given URIs AFAIK.
I'm not 100% cerrtain about this btw - it was just a thought. Lots of
the XML <to uri="someUri"/> or <to ref="someRef"/> support both. I
just wondered if it'd be simpler if everything, including refs, were a
URI
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
