Ok, keeping own annotations makes sense. Do we want to support JSR-303 annotations out of the box by adding a new jar depenency to tapestry-ioc or would a new library make more sense?
I tend to the outof the box soluton. On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo < [email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 08:58:40 -0200, Christian Riedel < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Igor, >> > > Hi, guys! > > > 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... >> > > I was going to post the same opinion. :) I think it wouldn't be hard to > support both the Tapestry-IoC annotations and the JSR 303 ones. We'd just > need to document which one Tapestry would check first and not allowing mixed > use in the same class. > > By the way, thanks Igor for stepping up for implementing this. I hope I > have time to team up with you in this project. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer, > and instructor > Owner, Ars Machina Tecnologia da Informação Ltda. > http://www.arsmachina.com.br > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Best regards, Igor Drobiazko http://tapestry5.de
