Hi Igor, I'm not sure about the deprecation but generally it's a good idea, I think. Look at Hibernate and JPA for example. They have kept their annotations and support the standard ones as well. I like the idea of having the choice...
Cheers Christian Am 21.12.2010 um 11:53 schrieb Igor Drobiazko: > Well, I don't see any reasonable parameters for @Inject, @InjectService and > @Scope. These annotations have been used for years and are more than stable. > > > Again, we would not loose anything but gain a better adoption. Just think of > the situation where you need to place @Inject on a constructor of a JavaBean > for the BeanEditForm component. It just don't work in companies which reuse > their models in different projects. Tapestry annotations in model classes is > kind of a polution, but standard annotations are ok for most of developers. > > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Tom van Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Actually, I'm not completely convinced yet. >> Reason against: We might want to add parameters to the annotations. We >> can't add them to the JSR-330 ones. >> Counterargument: But on the other hand, we could place these additional >> parameters, when and if we invent them, on a new annotation without creating >> overlap with JSR-330 >> >> Tom. >> >> Op 21-12-2010 9:20, Igor Drobiazko schreef: >> >> Now that 5.2 is out, we can start working on 5.3. I'm going to add support >>> for JSR-330: Dependency Injection for Java in the next days, weeks. >>> >>> I believe now it is time to think about whether we still need our own >>> annotations for injection. I think that support of standard annotations >>> would improve the adoption of Tapestry. Here are the overlappings of >>> JSR-330 >>> and Tapestry IoC: >>> >>> org.apache.tapestry5.ioc.annotations.Inject = javax.inject.Inject >>> org.apache.tapestry5.ioc.annotations.InjectService = javax.inject.Inject >>> and >>> javax.inject.Named >>> org.apache.tapestry5.ioc.annotations.Scope = javax.inject.Scope >>> >>> Probably it makes sence to add a new depenendency for Tapestry IoC and not >>> to provide a new library. I'd rather deprecate our own annotations and >>> encourage people to move to standard annotations. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > > -- > Best regards, > > Igor Drobiazko > http://tapestry5.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
