2008/12/1 Claus Ibsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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?Probably a cut and paste error for the Pattern annotations :) >> 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"/>. Yeah. Still not 100% sure I think this is a good idea - it just removes one less moving part (remembering if its a uri or a ref) -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration http://fusesource.com/
