Why not default the id? I almost always use the "simple" name of the interface for my service ids and that would save me some typing. From what I've seen of postings on the list, a lot of other folks use the same notation.
-----Original Message----- From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 9:53 AM To: dev@hivemind.apache.org Subject: Re: New convention? I'd leave as <service id="Foo">, default the interface, default the builder, etc. Otherwise good idea. On 7/30/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > How about this? You can define a service point with nothing but the > interface! Consider this example: > > <service interface="com.myco.service.MyService" /> > > First, HiveMind will default the service point id to "MyService." Then, > HiveMind will look for a default implementation class called > "com.myco.service.impl.MyServiceImpl" and try to use BuilderFactory to build > a default, autowired instance. I've found that this is my typical scenario. > This way, you can cut out a LOT of XML. What do you think? > > James > > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship TWD Consulting, Inc. Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry Creator, Apache HiveMind Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
