oltu-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] use of the Annotations in Amber
Date Sun, 27 Jun 2010 07:56:00 GMT
I vote

[X] Pro Annotations

even if I agree with Pid that sometimes they deserve some more complex
coding, in the end I think annotations are cleaner and make code more
extensible without actually changing methods' signature. I.e. as I said for
Messages in the previous thread I would like to be able to set
required parameters and default values via annotations.
Moreover I think that since we chose java6 it sounds reasonable to go
towards the full exploit of its features.
Have a nice day,


2010/6/25 Simone Tripodi <simone.tripodi@gmail.com>

> Hi all,
> I'm here to call a new vote to define our design direction. Some
> threads ago on this ML, Pid and I were discussing about the use, or
> not, of Java metadata Annotations to enhance OAuth messages and
> tokens.
> Pros:
> * marshallers/unmarshallers to/from strings could be auto-generated
> using the APT;
> * the calculation of the base string (just an example) is parameter
> agnostic.
> Cons:
> * not so hard writing parsers (JavaCC? AntLR? XText?) and serializers;
> * not so hard writing the base string algorithm
> So please cast your votes in favor of
> [] Pro Annotations
> [] Cons Annotations
> The vote will stay open for the next 72 hours. It would be nice if the
> choice comes with a justification, so everybody can take care about
> someone else's considerations.
> My vote if
> [X] Pro Annotations
> I already implemented the base string calculus based only on metadata
> discovery and I didn't take care about the parameter retrieving
> criteria. I'd love to have a choice to see Annotations in action on
> compile-time :P
> Cheers, have a nice weekend,
> Simo
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/

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