On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 14:48 -0400, Jody Garnett wrote: > Adrian Custer wrote: > > As I understand Martin's vision, users are not forced to even think > > about the annotations, which users can happily ignore. They are > > annotations, not code, and invisible in the javadoc. > I am not that worried about annotations; except that we want to bind the > same beans to two schemas (ie Filter 1.0 and Filter 1.1 as the example). > For things like metadata class where there is one schema we could get > away with it ...
As you said, one can create DTO objects or use a home built parser framework. The annotations are in addition to, not in replacement of anything, merely another way to benefit from the same code. So JAXB could be written for Filter 1.2, a parser could do Filter 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and a DTO could do 1.0 and 1.1. > Um so how do you decide what format the annotations support? Whichever one the code was written for no? Generally the latest when you add annotations to your code. > As we > migrate to Filter 1.2 all the other uses would break right? Why? If you want to do Filter 1.0, you have code for that that works, correct? How is someone else doing 1.2 with a different method going to impact you? No one is asking everyone to ditch the tool that works for them. And so far, I have not seen any example where the annotations break other approaches. Martin wants to dive into glassfish and having *a* set of annotations for each module helps him work there. --adrian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
