BTW I think JSR 250 is kinda frozen now (despite not being final); though I'm hoping if we all get behind it and use it as the basis of AnDI we can get another minor update done later on - e.g. to remove the restriction on no checked exceptions on @PostConstruct/@PreDestroy methods. etc.
James On 4/5/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/4/06, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Apr 3, 2006, at 5:12 AM, James Strachan wrote: > > > > > > so I'm sure the XBean/OpenEJB folks will be implementing this > > > anyway. > > > > > > I'm not yet at that point in understanding what Dave B. has already > > > done in OpenEJB 3, but you're right it will be of high priority to > > > implement. > > > > > > Agreed. Adding support for AnDI into XBean would be pretty easy > > > then OpenEJB could reuse that. I ultimately want the entire > > > Geronimo kernel to support AnDI; whether you use EJB3 or not. > > > > Trick is the @Resource annotation can't be used to annotate a > > constructor. > > > > Know anyone on JSR 250 who'd propose changing that? > > Good point - though before JSR 250 & EJB 3, when Pico was just > starting, I tended to use the convention that contructor arguments > were 'mandatory' properties and setter methods were for optional stuff > (or stuff that can be configured after construction). > > i.e. its kinda implicit that any constructor arguments must be > injected to be able to construct the object - so they are mandatory > already. I guess a container could shove in null objects or zero > values if it can't find a value, but maybe its easier to just say that > for constructor injection, the parameters should be considered > mandatory? > -- > > James > ------- > http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ > -- James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
