Op Tue, 22 May 2012 20:32:46 +0200 schreef Brett Porter <[email protected]>:
On 22/05/2012, at 7:42 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2012/5/22 Brett Porter <[email protected]>:
On 22/05/2012, at 6:37 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
I understand the point
but I don't think reworking javadoc tags too much now is a good idea:
javadoc
tags are not easy to check when using them
instead, it is important to carefully choose java 5 annotations,
which are
checked at compile time, with IDE completion when writing source
I absolutely agree on this - sorry I didn't make that clear.
@Parameter( defaultValue = "${project}", readonly = true ) is ok for
me
creating a new annotation just to avoid readonly doesn't deserve it
IMHO
I don't think that's very clear, as it still implies a project is a
"parameter" when it is really a "special" type of injection. And then
you have a "default" value which implies you can customise it, and a
readonly attribute that says you can't :) It has bothered me a while -
we shouldn't ask the plugin developer to tell us something (readonly)
that we can already infer.
I agree on this one. This might solve another problem that I face every
now and then: which "special" expressions/parameters are available?
Maybe time to consolidate, and align the names at the same time, while
still spitting out a compatible plugin.xml for current Maven versions?
@javax.inject.Inject
- use underlying DI framework
? I miss you here. You mean at runtime level ? So that won't with
current core (2.x or 3.x)
I may have misunderstood what you said earlier, but I thought the
runtime operated off of plugin.xml still - and the plugin tools could
parse any annotation into that, so we were free to use the standard
ones. In the future, the core could well use that more directly, which
would also be easier if it's a standard annotation.
- replaces @component
- make sure this works as expected for at least MavenSession, which
gives us access to all the old parameter expressions (project,
session, settings, etc.)
- use @Provider for collections
@Configuration( defaultValue, required )
A new annotation ?
Pretty much just renaming and simplifying @Parameter to match the name
used in the POM and avoid confusion with the historical Javadoc tag.
- replaces parameter to construct the fields needed for
<configuration> in the POM.
- use @Named for alias
- could even replace required with some form of @NotNull/@Nullable
(http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/wiki/UseNullable, or JSR 303).
- If you're already using ASM you can probably also pull defaultValue
out of an initial assignment instead
deprecated, description, since, etc. were already addressed in the
earlier thread.
Olivier, I know you already have this working with the current
annos... would this fit or am I way off base? :)
That's not the problem.
My issue is to use some stuff like @Inject which we don't handle at
runtime on core.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
[email protected]
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
http://twitter.com/brettporter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
Brett Porter
[email protected]
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
http://twitter.com/brettporter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
