Consider renaming @Value to @Property
-------------------------------------
Key: SHALE-191
URL: http://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-191
Project: Shale
Type: New Feature
Components: Tiger
Versions: 1.0.3
Reporter: Adam Brod
I find it very confusing to use the annotation @Value for a managed property.
I think in terms of the faces-config.xml file, "Managed Beans" and "Managed
Properties". If I want to configure a managed bean with Shale-Tiger, I
annotate my class with the @Bean. If I want to configure my managed property,
I would expect to annotate my property with @Property. Since annotations have
a value attribute, it makes sense to me that @Property("#{param.id}") would
read as "managed property with value #{param.id}".
In Shale-Tiger 1.0.3, I have to annotate my property with @Value. When I look
at my code (@Value("#{param.id}")) , it doesn't read very well. "Managed value
with value #{param.id}".
I think it would make more sense to use @Property instead of @Value. I noticed
that Craig accidentally used @Property in an email as well, so clearly I'm not
the only one who thinks in terms of @Property and not @Value -
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Shale--tiger---abstract-base-class--p4838056.html
:)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/struts/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
