Nathaniel Harward wrote: >> Anyways, the next nice step would be to package all those annotations >> into the config module that would have annotation classes and >> prepackaged DSO configuration for them. So, user would compile his code >> with module jar in order to use these annotations and then just include >> annotation module in tc-config. >> > I think this is a great idea and one people would certainly like to > see. My only concern is that we make sure to pick user friendly names > since they will be in the app layer and not in the DSO layer. > > I realize the code you posted in your message was just an example, but > for example "@Portable" has no context outside of DSO and inside the > application, or more likely a completely different context altogether > that might make user code confusing to read. Another easily imaginable > candidate of "@Root" is something that would make sense to us, but > probably would require some kind of qualifier or different name if it > were a "public" annotation. > Nat, the package name org.terracotta.annotations (or something like that) would be the name space, so it could be sufficient to get an idea about context.
The whole idea of annotations that they are context specific, so org.terracotta.annotations.Portable is somehow meaningful on its own. I initially used "Included" or "Clusterable" annotation, but then recalled that DSO trows "non-portable" exception, hence @Portable annotation. > I would suggest before we release them that we come up with a list and > post it to the users/dev lists to see how people react to them. > Sure, those names were used simply as an illustration. regards, Eugene _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
