For example, I think the ideas in Jeha could also be applied to Commons-Validator. In my opinion, the examples of Commons-Validator could be more simple and readable with using Annotation.
I don`t have many ideas yet but I see the potent possibility of Annotation as I can see through Jeha. :) I think your idea is still very fresh, even though you may see the problems of Jeha through specific discussion. Cheers. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Andre Dantas Rocha < [email protected]> wrote: > It sounds interesting to me. Do you already have any ideas of new domains? > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: Min Cha [mailto:[email protected]] > Enviada em: quarta-feira, 8 de abril de 2009 07:03 > Para: Commons Developers List > Assunto: Re: Possible incubation? > > Hi, Andre. > > I think that many legacy codes could be improved by Annotation. > In this aspect, your idea seems like good. > > How do you think about expending the core idea of Jeha to other domains as > well as exception handling? > In my opinion, there might be many domains which can be improved though the > core idea of Jena. > > Cheers. :) > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Jörg Schaible <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Andre, > > > > Andre Dantas Rocha wrote at Dienstag, 7. April 2009 14:38: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > This message was originally sent to incubator list, but they suggest to > > > post it here because *maybe* the idea can fit in Commons project. > > > > > > I'm developing a framework called Jeha. The main idea is to provide > easy > > > exception description and handling using annotations in methods and > > > classes > > > and some commons handlers. I believe that the idea is simple, but > > > powerful. > > > > > > The initial code and start guide of framework are here: > > > > > < > > > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=242203&package_id=294 > > > 931&release_id=650572> > > > > > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=242203&package_id=2949 > > > 31&release_id=650572 > > > > > > I'd like to hear from community if this idea is valuable for a possible > > > incubation. > > > > > > Please let me know your opinion. > > > > It might be only me, but I see this approach a bit critical. On one hand > > you're right, writing exception code is quite tedious sometimes, but with > > your solution you wipe out any useful method signature regarding > exception > > declaration. What happens if I don't wanna handle certain exception types > > or RuntimeException instances? I cannot simply rethrow from the handler. > > > > - Jörg > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > -- > Min Cha, Dreaming Developer > Robust-Task : > http://code.google.com/p/robust-coupe/wiki/RobustTaskIntroduction > English : http://minslovey.blogspot.com > Korean : http://minslovey.tistory.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Min Cha, Dreaming Developer Robust-Task : http://code.google.com/p/robust-coupe/wiki/RobustTaskIntroduction English : http://minslovey.blogspot.com Korean : http://minslovey.tistory.com
