Hi Tom, Hi Tom,
Comment inline below. On Sep 26, 2012, at 345PM, Tom Hobbs wrote: > Actually, I find that very interesting. > > Config via convention (with overrides) is mostly there, I think. We just > need to decide the convention and slot it in, so that's one hurdle. > > From my uses of River, I can think of a couple of annotations - not > necessarily the same ones - that would have been useful. Lifecycle is > certainly interesting, especially as you go up through the layers from pure > River stuff into the business domain and what makes a service ready to do > it's job. The question the becomes, I suppose, if there is a service > container, how does it hook in and what do those hooks look like? Can we > draw any standard hooks out and bake them straight into River? (This > conversation gives me deja vu. ;-) > > Gregg, does the service container you're working on have any of these kinds > of hooks? Can you see it fitting into your work anywhere? What kind of > help/support do you need? > > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Dennis Reedy <[email protected]>wrote: > Consider even if lifecycle annotations are not pursued, IMO River really needs to address the other points I bring up: >> As for people who are new to any technology, I think the most important >> thing is to communicate concepts and knock down barriers for entry. >> Additionally, the project needs to show how easy it is to get something >> running. Perhaps not just get it running, but how to develop and test your >> service. Right now the bar is way too high for anybody to create a project >> using River that has full lifecycle support for: >> >> 1. Dependency management >> 2. Testing framework (not for River but for your services) >> 3. Packaging and deployment >> >> Once River can provide an approach for developers to easily develop, >> start, test and deploy their code, how can anyone really expect an uptick >> in use?
