geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: G specific annotations for 2.0, XDoclet or 175?
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:56:06 GMT
Is this issue still on the table?  I haven't seen any specifics.  In  
general I'd prefer to stay away from G specific stuff and leave them  
in deployment plans.  However, if we make them available they should  
be totally optional and users can make their own choices.

On Nov 29, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Sachin Patel wrote:

> What are people's thoughts on annotation support we should provide  
> in Geronimo 2.0? I'm not referring to the spec annotations, but  
> container specific annotations (configuration in our g-deployment  
> plans).  From a users perspective, our deployment plans are massive  
> and one of the options to simply using them is through annotations.
> Is this something people agree on?
> If so, then we need to have the XDoclet / JSR-175 debate.  From my  
> viewpoint, XDoclet is a legacy technology with the introduction of  
> JSR-175.  There are misconceptions that XDoclet still plays a role  
> in that its purpose is a code-generation facility and JSR-175  
> cannot be used for this purpose is not the case.  With JSR-175 and  
> Sun's APT code/xml generation can be done as well.  (Even though  
> its much more complex to do).  I'd like to provide XDoclet support  
> in Geronimo 2.0 as its the easier solution, however my concern is  
> that JEE 5 Developers will not want to deal with mixed type  
> annotations.  Do people see this as a valid concern?  Or should our  
> approach be Geronimo Specific 175 Annotations, that can either  
> generate xml or  introspected during runtime as an alternative  
> dealing directly with the deployment plans.
> -sachin

Matt Hogstrom

View raw message