-> for properties: both will be supported i guess -> here (well today at least) Pojo part is mainly application config (which rest provider, which cxf features...) so pojo is fine but your comment is interesting and we should add aliases for "admin" ...any idea? -> about resource: if you declare a resource it will work but the resource will be application scoped at least, do you ask to be able to declare a resource for a single bean?
*Romain Manni-Bucau* *Twitter: @rmannibucau* *Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com* 2012/8/24 Enrico Olivelli <[email protected]> > I would most likely use the second format. I grep config files all the > time. > +1 it is better to write fully qualified properties names > > > I prefer <Properties> for the simple reason that it reinforces the idea >> that the syntax is that of a Java properties file (with XML escapes, nota >> bene). >> > +1 it is simple > > Otherwise I think I prefer <PojoContext> over <ClassContext>. >> > I think that config files are mostly for deployers/IT admins, so "Pojo" is > a stop word. > > I prefer > AppContext --> for EAR and/or single collapsed application in a WAR > WebAppContext --> for WARs > ModuleContext --> for EJB Jars > Properties/Configuration --> for any managed bean/pojo > > > One question: It is possible to create a bean and map it directly to the > JNDI namespace of the component ? so that it is available using @Resource > > - Enrico > > >
