On Mar 30, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 14:41, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 14:28, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to propose to deprecate the "value" and "hints" fields of
>>>> @Component and instead use the @Named annotation (and @Qualifier
>>>> annotations later on).
>>>>
>>>> The rationale is to align with JSR330's @Named annotation at injection
>>>> points and also to start going in the direction of CDI (JSR299) since CDI
>>>> uses @Named for beans too.
>>>>
>>>> Example before:
>>>>
>>>> @Component("hint")
>>>> public class MyComponent...
>>>>
>>>> After:
>>>>
>>>> @Component
>>>> @Named("hint")
>>>> public class MyComponent
>>>
>>> Is @Component really required in that case ?
>>
>> Yes we still need to discover component declarations.
>
> I mean if it's just for discovering we could change the test on
> @Component to check @Component || @Named
We could but I don't like it too much since it's uneven. @Named doesn't
semantically means it's a component.
What I'd prefer is find out how CDI impl do it and do the same (since they
don't need any annotation for Roles and Components).
Thanks
-Vincent
>
>>
>>> Do we have to explicitly
>>> use @Named("default") for default hint ?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> CDI says that @Default annotations are not required.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's my +1
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> -Vincent
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1 for anything going in the direction of using JSR330
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thomas Mortagne
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
