On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Simon Laws<[email protected]> wrote: > Is this for 1.x, 2.x or both? I'm assuming 1.x as we have scope in 2.x > to decide what the real answer should be. >
That sounds right, this (TUSCANY-3096) would be for 1.x and in 2.x we'd do what ever the final spec says. > Would I be right in assuming that this means that by default the > annotation processing in Spring will be off? I think in 1.x we should leave it on by default so as not to break compatibility with previous Tuscany releases. This doesn't violate the spec drafts as it doesn't say anything about the annotation support. > > Whether we go for a policy or an extension point (or something else > such as Tuscany extension element inside implementation.spring) > depends on how we want the user to be able to control this behaviour. > > The policy/Impl extension approach allows the user to potentially > control this on a component by component basis. > > An extension does it for the whole runtime. > > The second seems less confusing in the near term. Can we make the > extension processing logic the Tuscany extension that Ant is talking > about. In this case however the default is not do annotation > processing > +1 for a whole runtime approach, I don't think there's any need for more fined grained control. > If we are going to apply this to 2.x it may be worth taking a wider > view if we are starting to build up a number of these extension > controlled runtime behaviour switches. > +1, it would be good in 2.x to have a better way to configure runtime options. ...ant
