On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> A recent commit contains: > > >> + @PluginAttribute(value = "blocking", defaultValue = "true") >> final boolean blocking, >> > > Using a String default for a non-string attribute seems like a punch in > the eye ;-) This really feels unnatural. > > Currently, I cannot say: > > @PluginAttribute(value = "blocking", defaultValue = true) final boolean > blocking, > @PluginAttribute(value = "someInt", defaultValue = 123) final int blocking, > > That would require the annotation attribute's defaultValue to be typed as > an Object which is illegal. > Would it be an idea to have different attributes for the default value, one for each type? @PluginAttribute(value = "blocking", defaultBooleanValue = true) final boolean blocking, @PluginAttribute(value = "someInt", defaultIntValue = 123) final int blocking, > > I suggest: > > @BooleanPluginAttribute(value = "someBool", defaultValue = true) final > boolean blocking > @IntPluginAttribute(value = "someInt", defaultValue = 123) final int > blocking > > If not, then at least say: > > @PluginAttribute(value = "blocking", defaultValue = TRUE) > > and do a static import of TRUE from our Strings class (assuming you'd add > TRUE to Strings). > > If we are going to do typed configuration with a custom annotation > mechanism it seems inevitable to have to go with IntPluginAttribute, and so > on. Using mixed types looks very odd. > > Gary > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second > Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >
