isis-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Haywood <...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
Subject Re: v2 - explicit vs implicit annotations
Date Thu, 03 Jan 2019 12:46:56 GMT
I've raised https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-2064 for this
possible enhancement.


On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 09:11, Dan Haywood <dan@haywood-associates.co.uk>
wrote:

> Hi Jayesh,
> thanks for your thoughts.
>
> With regard to XML vs annotations, you might have noticed that the
> .layout.xml file is equivalent to (and overrides) the @XxxLayout
> annotations (@DomainObjectLayout, @PropertyLayout, @CollectionLayout,
> @ActionLayout).  However, there is very deliberately *no* ability to use
> XML for the non-layout annotations (@DomainObject, @Property, @Collection,
> @Action etc).
>
> I tend to think of the metadata as relating either to the presentation
> layer (ie the layout annotations) or intrinsic to the domain layer (the
> non-layout annotations). And, obviously, the jdo annotations relate to the
> persistence layer.  So, the rule that we have is that the presentation
> layer metadata can also be expressed in XML (so it can be dynamically
> reloaded), but the domain layer metadata cannot because (unless using
> jrebel or similar) a change to the domain would likely require a restart of
> the application anyway)
>
> Hope that makes sense.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 12:56, Jayesh Prajapati <jayeshecs@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan
>>
>> I agree with both the options and would also be great if these can be
>> configurable at xml file level.
>>
>> Having said this, based on my experience too many configurations are not
>> good mainly because ...
>> ... 1) Annotation guide is for advance users, meaning newbees will find it
>> difficult
>> ... 2) During deployment extreme cares are required because usually
>> deployment are done by technical operations who are not familiar with such
>> settings
>>
>> I will share more thoughts about such settings/config management at UI
>> level.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 17:18 Dan Haywood <dan@haywood-associates.co.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Submodules - yes, that's a good point, I hadn't considered that at all.
>> >
>> > I suppose it also makes sense to be able to specify using the Module
>> > interface as well, to create some sort of search hierarchy : class ->
>> > module -> global.
>> >
>> > But perhaps one step at a time.
>> >
>> > Thx!
>> > Dan
>> >
>> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 11:27, Patrick Pliessnig <p.pliessnig@gmx.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Dan
>> > >
>> > > In a reuse scenario a local configuration of the annotation property
>> is
>> > > certainly useful. I guess that if you want to integrate an existing
>> > > subdomain module into a destination application, a configuration
>> > > property at the class or module level could ease the job.
>> > >
>> > > Patrick
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Am 28.12.2018 um 11:54 schrieb Dan Haywood:
>> > > > Hi folks,
>> > > >
>> > > > ... and happy holidays!
>> > > >
>> > > > We currently have the configuration property
>> > > > "isis.reflector.explicitAnnotations.action" which if specified
>> > > > requires @Action to be added as an annotation for all public methods
>> > that
>> > > > don't represent properties/collections or supporting methods.  If
>> this
>> > is
>> > > > enabled then there's generally no need to annotate public methods
>> that
>> > > > aren't meant to be in the metamodel with the @Programmatic
>> annotation.
>> > > >
>> > > > Andi and I have just been discussing this (off-list) and wondering
>> if
>> > we
>> > > > should extend this in v2.  Our idea is maybe to allow this to be
>> > > specified
>> > > > at the class level, and to also have three levels rather than two:
>> > > >
>> > > > - explicit : all properties, collections and actions must be
>> annotated
>> > > > - actions : actions must be annotated, but properties and
>> collections
>> > > need
>> > > > not.  This is the behavior if the above configuration property is
>> > > specified.
>> > > > - implicit : no annotations are required.  This is the current
>> default
>> > > >
>> > > > So, we were thinking to add a value to @DomainObject, eg
>> > > >
>> > > > @DomainObject(metamodelDiscoveryStrategy = EXPLICIT | ACTIONS |
>> > IMPLICIT
>> > > |
>> > > > AS_CONFIGURED)
>> > > >
>> > > > where "AS_CONFIGURED" would read a new configuration property that
>> > would
>> > > > take these three values (replacing the existing
>> > > > "isis.reflector.explicitAnnotations.action".
>> > > >
>> > > > Two questions:
>> > > >
>> > > > 1. is the idea of a new level to explicitly annotate everything
>> > > (properties
>> > > > and collections as well as actions) useful ?
>> > > > 2. is there a need to configure this on a class-by-class basis, or
>> is a
>> > > > global configuration property sufficient?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thx
>> > > > Dan
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>

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