30 Mar
2011
30 Mar
'11
2:56 p.m.
On Mar 30, 2011, at 2:49 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 14:41, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
We could but I don't like it too much since it's uneven. @Named doesn't
semantically means it's a component.
What I'd prefer is find out how CDI impl do it and do the same (since they don't
need any annotation for Roles and Components).
Thanks
-Vincent
On Mar 30, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
I mean if it's just for discovering we could change the test on
@Component to check @Component || @Named On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 14:28, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Yes we still need to discover component declarations. Hi devs,
I'd like to propose to deprecate the "value" and "hints" fields
of @Component and instead use the @Named annotation (and @Qualifier annotations later
on).
The rationale is to align with JSR330's @Named annotation at injection points and
also to start going in the direction of CDI (JSR299) since CDI uses @Named for beans too.
Example before:
@Component("hint")
public class MyComponent...
After:
@Component
@Named("hint")
public class MyComponent
Is @Component really required in that case ?
>
>> Do we have to explicitly
>> use @Named("default") for default hint ?
>
> No.
>
> CDI says that @Default annotations are not required.
>
>>>
>>> Here's my +1
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>>
>>
>> +1 for anything going in the direction of using JSR330
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Mortagne
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent