> I am no big fan of annotations, but I think they are actually less verbose > than the API-based approach, because iPOJO reads most default values (e.g., > data type) from the byte code, so they don't need to be specified in iPOJO > annotations.
Quite true. I do like the annotations, the problem is that someone decided that even when you're using annotations you still need to use XML to create the instances. Having realised that annotations no longer removed all the need to use XML, I started thinking it would be cleaner to put all the OSGi code in one place, which meant using the XML for everything... Plus there is probably an argument somewhere that if you put the annotations into the actual code, then that code can't be used without the ipojo.annotations jar lying around somewhere. But assuming that this new API will allow configuring both the dependencies and the instances, it's an awesome move forward. I'll have to check it out some time. Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@felix.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@felix.apache.org
