On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:37 PM, James Strachan 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?
I get it -- you're using @Resource to imply whether or not an object
attribute is optional or required. We're talking about different
things then. Was more going after EJB 3 perspective where @Resource
is primarily used to label an object attribute with an identifier and
optional mapping the injector understands (such as a jndi name, an
xml attribute or element name, or whatever).
Seems like in your scenario, someone couldn't use the annotation to
specify how object attribute would be populated via an injectable
resource but still let it be an optional dependency. Guessing you
don't really care though :)
-David
