On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:52, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Peter Donald wrote:
> > The last six months I have been developing a container that extracts all
> > metadata from attributes/javadoc tags (similar to commons-attributes,
> > dot.net attributes or the various interceptor frameworks). So it would
> > end up being specified by something like
> >
> > /**
> > * @fortress.lifecycle name="ThreadSafe"
> > */
> > public class MyComponent {}
>
> Sounds cool.
>
> What about specifying a different comment namespace rather than the
> javadoc one and use an xml syntax instead of the
> soon-to-be-too-simple-for-the-purpose javadoc one?
The main call against that is that it is not what everyone else uses or
supports.
XDoclet (xdoclet.sf.net) is fairly pervasive through most enterprise
developers and if they had ever managed to get stable would have dominated
the whole landscape. They didn't and a whole crop of other toolkits cropped
up such as qdox.sf.net (which we already use) or vdoclet, or ejbdoclet etc
People have already developed parsers, validators, editors and heaps of other
tools to work with these formats which is not something we can even get close
to getting as comprehensive support for a custom format.
Add in the fact that JSR175 will probably use javadoc based metadata and I
don't think there is support for a custom format. Though it would make
documentation of all that easier :)
However I have never come across a case where the metadata was incapable of
representing what I wanted - it may be clumsy at times but still useful.
Check out MSDN docs on dot.net attributes or the xdoclet website.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------*
| Trying is the first step to failure. |
| So never try, Lisa - Homer Jay Simpson |
*------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
