I am not using Tapestry web framework (which means I'd have everything in
my App's module, and its submodules, to keep it all together.) This means
the "other startup methods" are in other modules.
I work with a lot of modules which run together in different combinations.
They contribute to the startup chain with things they need to run at
startup. Occasionally, a module relies on another module and needs to run
after it. I use the ordering constraint in the contribution method for the
startup chain so I can organize them.
Accepting the ordering constraint in the @Startup annotation would be a
nicety. It would also make it consistent with the functionality of the
contribution method.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Michael Gentry <mgen...@masslight.net>wrote:
> Hi Eli,
>
> This would be clever, but you can always have a single @Startup method that
> then calls all of your other startup methods in the order you want. In
> some ways, I think this is easier to read/understand. The startup order is
> clearly defined in a single spot instead of having to go decipher all
> "before:" and "after:" modifiers on other methods.
>
> mrg
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Eli Doran <e...@elidoran.com> wrote:
>
> > I like the simplicity of using the @Startup annotation compared to the
> > startup contribution method.
> >
> > However, it doesn't have the ability to order its execution as in the
> > contribution method.
> >
> > It seems it would be a simple thing to accept the ordering constraint in
> > the annotation like:
> >
> > > @Startup("before:SomeOtherStartupOperation")
> >
> >
> > What do you all think?
> >
>
