On Wednesday 19 March 2003 16:53, Peter Donald wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:08, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > I, for one, like to keep things simple and understandable. I don't favour > > "essential information" hidden in comments, in a parser friendly format. > > Where do you want it put? > > Metadata makes the components easier to use, deploy and maintain. You could > store it outside the components in config files but then you have to make > sure multiple artefacts keep in sync. Having the config files generated > from the source (or baked in) makes maintainence simple. Best place to > document code is with the code and metadata is just aform of documentation. We live in an XML world (or at least I do), and having a "unified" XML Meta description document, that can be transformed (for compatibility reasons?) to each containers requirement, sounds a lot easier to me... Especially considering the @tags already in some of my source, from UML and JDO (Kodo). It is outright ugly, and after specified (hardly every up for change), just occupies vasts amount of precious screen space. Easily get half the screen of @tag lines. Also, if you are requiring me to have dedicated Ant tasks (not everybody builds with Ant (strangely enough)) to be used when I develop my Avalon blocks/components, then you ARE raising the bar significantly. I'm pretty new to Avalon (apart from being used in Cocoon), and it has been a breeze to start developing components. If I had to get Ant tasks to work for my builds, I would probably have turned at the doorway. Step out of your boxes and look at it from the 3rdParty person's POV. The world don't center around Avalon "core components", and for Avalon to really take off, we need a friendlier entry point, and XML is (today) a lot friendlier and more accepted, than "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in comments. Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
