On 7/15/05, Nick Stuart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 *highly* encourage you to work with Andrew on this stuff. I'm
confident that he can get you up to speed in understanding what he's
doing exactly. Also, because you're not familiar with it, you're the
perfect person to be writing tests for what he's doing. This would
kill two birds with one stone in that it would provide tests for the
work and it would help you understand things.
> 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.
I agree, but why wait? Understand what each other is doing and meet in
the middle. Don't expend the energy to perform double work that
someone else is already doing. Also, having two sets of eyes on
everything is far more beneficial than simply one person sitting in a
corner working on it alone.
> > > 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.
Yeah, that's not a bad idea until you have so many things that reside
in the optional.jar that it too is a hog. But getting back to my
previous comments, working together with Andrew would allow the work
to get done faster and into the communities hands quicker too. I hope
you'll at least consider doing this.
BTW, I'm friends with Howard. He's a very good guy.
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]
-------------------------------------------------
