On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Would that work for you? Is there any reason you don't want to use any of
> the above?
I just make an observation, where I end up with a lot of
if( abc == null )
{
abc = .... ;
}
and that is not only in Entities. In the "Entities" case, I still
think that "properties" file are not a full substitution of
programmatic defaults, since the 'library developer' is not in control
of the deployment scenario.
I.e. Often (not 100%) a "fallback" is needed for optional values.
@UseDefaults vs @Optional --> My reasoning goes like this; "Hey, this
value is optional, and if you don't provide a value, I will use Xyz
internally", which logically makes a lot of sense, since that is what
I end up writing in the Javadocs.
Defaults declarations in assembly is also outside the scope of the
"library developer", but there is probably some important semantic
overlap of how it should work.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
