incubator-deltaspike-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mehdi Heidarzadeh <heidarzad...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: XML Config
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:32:21 GMT
We have some developers who like xml and some who hate xml and that might
be because of different tastes or background when working with XML in the
past or what ever.
I think configuration with both xml and property files are ok, because some
developers like property files and some like annotations and some xml and
some of them like combination of them like me ;)
I hate *writing* *code* using  XML (like mapping entities, it's kind of
writing code using xml) but I like configuring *application
configuration*with xml or property files, because I can change them in
deploy time
depending on deployment environment without any compilation.
when you ask someone about XML vs annotation vs ...? I think the answer
will depend on the taste and background of that developer.

Since seam3 has xml configuration and DS  can reuse it, why not providing
xml configuration feature too, and letting the developer to choose which
one to use? producer methods vs xml vs property file?


On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Marius Bogoevici <
marius.bogoevici@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2012-09-10 8:25 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>
>> This is what I would use non-compiled resources for as well.
>>
>> If I needed to CDI-enable some code without using annotations, I would
>> use the portable extension API directly.
>>
> Yes and no. In my opinion this is generic enough to warrant a configurable
> implementation, rather than producing a code template that would be copied
> and pasted around. I understand that all of us can master the fine points
> of writing an extension, but a configurable solution may be easier for the
> average developer.
>
>
>> On 7 Sep 2012, at 22:31, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>>  Why i would like to use files (i find xml too verbose) is for constants
>>> (uri for instance) or alternative/interceptor (as mentionned)
>>>
>>> Today i find other use case the translation of bad design
>>>
>>> ...just my opinion maybe
>>> Le 7 sept. 2012 23:01, "Jason Porter" <lightguard.jp@gmail.com> a écrit
>>> :
>>>
>>>  Mark, Pete and I discussed a little bit about the XML config (from
>>>> Solder)
>>>> on IRC today. We quickly decided that we needed to move over to the
>>>> mailing
>>>> list for more input, and to make things official.
>>>>
>>>> As things currently exist in the Solder XML Config, it's probably not
>>>> portable and would really need some of the changes in CDI 1.1 to work
>>>> properly. We also discussed throwing out the idea of completely
>>>> configuring
>>>> beans via XML and using the XML config for other tasks such as applying
>>>> interceptors and the like via regex or similar ideas, in other words
>>>> having
>>>> it being a subset of what currently exists today. What is in Solder is
>>>> very
>>>> similar to configuring beans via XML in Spring, and we feel that
>>>> paradigm
>>>> has sailed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm starting this thread to get some other ideas about what we should do
>>>> for XML config and also see what people think.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jason Porter
>>>> http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.**com <http://lightguard-jp.blogspot.com>
>>>> http://twitter.com/**lightguardjp <http://twitter.com/lightguardjp>
>>>>
>>>> Software Engineer
>>>> Open Source Advocate
>>>> Author of Seam Catch - Next Generation Java Exception Handling
>>>>
>>>> PGP key id: 926CCFF5
>>>> PGP key available at: keyserver.net, pgp.mit.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>


-- 
Mehdi Heidarzadeh Ardalani
Independent JEE Consultant, Architect and Developer.
http://www.TheBigJavaBlog.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message