There's no new functionality here, and it's not reducing any effort in
my opinion. This assumes that we go forward and created a resolver
or a bean. A resolver or a bean makes perfect sense, but a component
doesn't.
So we say goodbye to s:secure :)
Ok a bean is a lot more simpler to implement than a resolver for sure, also I'd not favor adding a new resolver to the resolver chain.
So +1 for the bean, extending and maintaining the bean is also simpler.
I'm planning to open a jira issue and assign it to myself after we all agree on the choice.
Cheers,
Cagatay
On 8/16/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/16/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're being polemic, Mike ;)
You're not the first person who's told me that :-)
> P.S.: What do we go for now? A bean or a resolver? What about
> extending the thing - it would be easier with a bean, right?
Dunno. Not sure of the details of how a resolver is implemented, but
it seems like it could be configured as easily as anything else. A
resolver will allow you to get around the method parameter
limitations.
