> I disagree with you (and with my own previous statements!) > > After thinking about it I prefer > > * @ejb:finder > * signature="ABABABABA" > * @weblogic:finder > * signature="KUKUKUKUUK" > * @jboss:finder > * signature="TOTOTOTOTO" > > rather than > > * @ejb:finder > * signature="ABABABABA" > * weblogic-signature="KUKUKUKUUK" > * jboss-signature="TOTOTOTOTO"
It gets tricky when you can have multiple ejb:finders. * @ejb:finder * signature="ABABABABA" * @weblogic:finder * signature="KUKUKUKUUK" * @jboss:finder * signature="TOTOTOTOTO" * @ejb:finder * signature="BABABABABA" * @weblogic:finder * signature="UKUKUKUKUK" * @jboss:finder * signature="OTOTOTOTOT" I don't know about you but my eyes are starting to twist 8-) We already have looooooots of tags in our code, don't make it even longer and harder to read ;-) > Because: > > 1) The first approach makes it impossible to keep vendor tag docs in > the vendor module's xtags.xml. We have to update the ejb module's > xtags.xml too. Well, then we should support fragmented tag defs maybe? > 2) It messes up the standard tags with vendor (nonstandard) attributes. > (This is not the same as what we're doing with jndi and persistence, > because we have given them vendor-neutral names) But it looks more like "vendor extensions" imho this way. Ara. _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=osdntextlink _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
