deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pete Muir <pm...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: @Config without @inject?
Date Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:55:01 GMT
+1, agree with Mark and Gerhard.

Shorter code is not always clearer code :-)

On 21 Jul 2012, at 00:45, Gerhard Petracek wrote:

> i agree with mark (that was also one of my arguments against it in our
> short (irc) discussion)
> 
> regards,
> gerhard
> 
> 
> 
> 2012/7/21 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> 
>> It's technically possible but it's imo not more readable.
>> We already got there having tons of different annotations and noone knows
>> if this actually triggers some action or not. If you have an explicit
>> @Inject in front, then all is clear.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibucau@gmail.com>
>>> To: deltaspike-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:13 AM
>>> Subject: @Config without @inject?
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> was wondering if we couldn't provide a @Config or support @ConfigProperty
>>> (let say a marking annotation for the moment) for static conf avoiding
>>> @Inject? it is more readable for me
>>> 
>>> wonder what you think about trying to make things shorter (while meta
>>> annotations are not in cdi itself)
>>> 
>>> typically:
>>> 
>>> public class Pool {
>>>    @Config("pool.size")
>>>    private int size;
>>> }
>>> 
>>> - Romain
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message