river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Service Definition
Date Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:53:40 GMT
For me, the question is whether there is something to get out of annotation processing.  Like,
for example, generating a "text" config file that matches/extracts all the data that the annotations
represent.  That would allow ops teams to have "everything" in hand to "tweak".  They'd know
everything that the developer had allowed them to tweak, and what the defaults were.  

Gregg Wonderly

On Sep 25, 2012, at 7:11 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG <simon@qcg.nl> wrote:

> On 25-09-12 11:26, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 04:32, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>> On 25-09-12 09:59, Dan Creswell wrote:
>>>>> Glad you introduced ops teams. Would a middle ground be possible? Two
>>>>> options: A annotation refering to a part in a deployment configuration
>>>>> file, or using the annotations as defaults, and provide ops team with
a
>>>>> overriding option?
>>>> I was edging towards the latter whilst scribbling the above...
>>> 
>>> We need an id to hang overrides onto, so i've created the ServiceClass
>>> annotation. Greg, are you ok with this?
>> 
>> Sure.  I suspect we need to flesh out some samples and see how they
>> look, then edit the "annotation vocabulary".
> 
> I've created <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/river/jtsk/trunk/netbeans/federation/src/org/apache/river/federation/IntrospectionConfiguration.java?view=markup>.
> 
> Would this be too much encapsulation? It would be nice if we had some kind of introspection
information collector where we can put all annotation parsing.
> 
> 
> -- 
> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397


Mime
View raw message