On 7/15/05, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/15/05, Nick Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well thats what I was thinking Bruce. I hate adding dependencys to
> > things, but sometimes it helps enough to warrent it. There are two
> > ways I'm looking at taking this, and future products I may work on.
> >
> > One is to keep them just that, seperate projects that are not directly
> > tied to the Castor code base. This has the advantage of being able to
> > do basically anything I want to get things working, but has the
> > limitation of working in the 'confines' of already existing Castor
> > code. Using this approach I could design things more like 'helper'
> > apps for castor that would do a lot of the grunt work and only worry
> > about my code breaking and not affecting the castor base code.
>
> So what are your thoughts on the work that Andrew is doing in the
> Castor code base?
>
I think annotations could add a lot to how things are configured. I
guess, since my CodeGeneration experince is limited I'm still trying
to wrap my head around what exactly Andrew accomplishing with his
work. Are their any test cases/examples that are available that I
could look at see whats 'supposed' to be happening Andrew?
I think eventually we both will be at a point where we have a lot of
the similar stuff going on, and at the point it would be a good idea
to see where we can consolidate things.
> > The other is to integrate it into the Castor code base and start
> > adding to that to do what I'm looking for. Bonus that everything is
> > already included when a user downloads Castor. Not so bonus that we
> > have to add yet MORE stuff to Castor that has the potential of
> > breaking, and not everyone would use it, but be forced to d/l and be
> > aware of it.
>
> Exactly! What about people that don't want it? Asking users to go
> through a matrix of things to download is too much. E.g., if you don't
> want annotations, download X, but if you do, download Y, etc. This
> could very quickly turn into a maintenance nightmare.
>
Agreed, having more jars to deal with is never a good thug. One way to
handle this would be to keep the Annotation additions as separate as
possible so they along could be packed up into one 'optional' jar that
a user could then add and use. But having two or more different
'castor' main jars, one with annotations, one with out, etc would be a
nightmare.
If anyone here uses Tapestry, this is the approach Howard has used in
4.0. Annotations are kept separate for people who still need 1.3, 1.4
JRE compatibility.
-Nick
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> The Castor Project
> http://www.castor.org/
>
> Apache Geronimo
> http://geronimo.apache.org/
>
-------------------------------------------------
If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please
send an empty message to the following address:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------
