On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:58 PM, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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");
Ah yeah that is actually nice.I looked at the @Produce code, why is there a @see javadoc for @InOnly? > >> 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. Yeah sometimes the fingers are faster than the mind. I realized that some bit later. We do this always. > > 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 Yeah it would. I guess <to uri="ref:foo"/> is as readable as <to ref="foo"/>. > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > Open Source Integration > http://fusesource.com/ >
