On 12 Mar 2015 at 10:30:50, Marius Dumitru Florea (mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote: Yes, I thought about it too, but discarded it because it’s less nice than having a strongly typed annotation IMO.

Retrieving a given annotation is a one liner in java so it’s not really an issue.

Thanks -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Hi, As it's documentation [1] mentions, the usage of the @Priority annotation should be defined by the classes it is used on: "The effect of using the Priority annotation in any particular instance is defined by other specifications that define the use of a specific class. For example, the Interceptors specification defines the use of priorities on interceptors to control the order in which interceptors are called." Therefore, I suggest we use the @Priority annotation on components that need it and that like to specify the order in which they are *used* (i.e. perform their main task).

Priorities on other behaviors that are added to a component (for example through interfaces like Initializable or Disposable, interfaces which are not components themselves) should provide their own specialized (behavior-driven) priority annotations (e.g. @DisposePriority, @InitializationPriority, etc.). Note: If we want to explore the possibility of using our own generic Priority annotation, we need to consider the fact that multiple annotations on the same java class is only supported [1] starting with java 1.8. Until then, the commonly used workaround [3] seems cumbersome to use.

Thanks, Eduard ---------- [1] http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/annotation/Priority.html [2] http://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7151010 [3] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1554112/multiple-annotations-of-the-same… On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: > Hi devs, > > As part of http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11905, Edy has started > using the Java @Priority annotation. > > This seems very good and I personally didn’t know about this annotation > before (maybe it’s been introduced not that long ago?). So for me it raises > the question of: do we want to use this annotation more and how does it > compare with what we’ve done so far. > > I can think of a few places that could have used it: > > * Macros.get/setPriority(). It should be possible to add support for > @Priority and modify MacroTransformation to use that annotation. > * Transformations. We have a jira issue opened for adding support for > Priority in Transformation’s executions (in TransformationManager). > * @DisposePriority (used by ECM). > * TranslationBundle.get/setPriority() > * … and probably some other places… > > However, I think there’s a namespacing problem. For example imagine that > we code a Macro and set @Priority on that Macro component. The ECM could > interpret it as a dispose priority while the MacroTransformation could > interpret it as an execution priority… > > Globally I think that use an annotation for expressing priority is great > and much better than what we’ve done in the past with get/setPriority() > methods. It’s better because priority is not a business concept and we’re > polluting the business interface with it. > > Now, in order to fix the namespacing issue, I think that the best solution > is that each module requiring some priority should introduce its own > annotation and should NOT depend on the @Priority one from the JDK (i.e. we > ban the usage of it). > > WDYT? > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > W

Hi, On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: ...and because they clearly express it, in their documentations, that they accept some annotations and they define how those annotations will be interpreted. Basically, the purpose of the javax.annotations package. I don`t find this better since it does not tell me what the macro does with that priority. @MacroExcutionPriority would have been clear, if that is what we pursue.

public class ContentMacro implement Macro Honestly, I am not a big fan of annotations, specially in Java, and I try to keep them to a minimal as much as possible. It feels like a shortcut that leads to a dead end. They are not code, but configuration and, as such, modifying configuration should not require recompiling the code.

Back to our particular discussion, AFAIK, we are not doing multiple roles per implementation. That, indeed, would probably not work with the javax Priority annotation due to lack of specificity. I do see the advantages of typed annotations, but also the need to be aware of more and more annotations, as they come, when our usecase is pretty simple and would be well satisfied by the javax Priority one. That is the main reason why I looked for a more generic solution instead of just making a new annotation for the document initializer use case. I find it uselessly polluting.

I`d love to hear more opinions on this :)

Thanks, Eduard > > > Priorities on other behaviors that are added to a component (for example > > through interfaces like Initializable or Disposable, interfaces which are > > not components themselves) should provide their own specialized > > (behavior-driven) priority annotations (e.g. @DisposePriority, > > @InitializationPriority, etc.). > > > > Note: If we want to explore the possibility of using our own generic > > Priority annotation, we need to consider the fact that multiple > annotations > > on the same java class is only supported [1] starting with java 1.8. > Until > > then, the commonly used workaround [3] seems cumbersome to use. > > Yep, I’d really not like to use a generic annotation with the namespace > being specified. I much much prefer typed annotations. > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > Thanks, > > Eduard > > > > ---------- > > [1] http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/annotation/Priority.html > > [2] http://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7151010 > > [3] > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1554112/multiple-annotations-of-the-same… > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, vincent(a)massol.net > > wrote: > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > As part of http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11905, Edy has started > > > using the Java @Priority annotation. > > > > > > This seems very good and I personally didn’t know about this annotation > > > before (maybe it’s been introduced not that long ago?). So for me it > raises > > > the question of: do we want to use this annotation more and how does it > > > compare with what we’ve done so far. > > > > > > I can think of a few places that could have used it: > > > > > > * Macros.get/setPriority(). It should be possible to add support for > > > @Priority and modify MacroTransformation to use that annotation. > > > * Transformations. We have a jira issue opened for adding support for > > > Priority in Transformation’s executions (in TransformationManager). > > > * @DisposePriority (used by ECM). > > > * TranslationBundle.get/setPriority() > > > * … and probably some other places… > > > > > > However, I think there’s a namespacing problem. For example imagine > that > > > we code a Macro and set @Priority on that Macro component. The ECM > could > > > interpret it as a dispose priority while the MacroTransformation could > > > interpret it as an execution priority… > > > > > > Globally I think that use an annotation for expressing priority is > great > > > and much better than what we’ve done in the past with get/setPriority() > > > methods. It’s better because priority is not a business concept and > we’re > > > polluting the business interface with it. > > > > > > Now, in order to fix the namespacing issue, I think that the best > solution > > > is that each module requiring some priority should introduce its own > > > annotation and should NOT depend on the @Priority one from the JDK > (i.e. we > > > ban the usage of it). > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > >

Hi, On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, vincent(a)massol.net <vincent(a)massol.net> wrote: ...and because they clearly express it, in their documentations, that they accept some annotations and they define how those annotations will be interpreted. Basically, the purpose of the javax.annotations package. I don`t find this better since it does not tell me what the macro does with that priority. @MacroExcutionPriority would have been clear, if that is what we pursue. public class ContentMacro implement Macro Honestly, I am not a big fan of annotations, specially in Java, and I try to keep them to a minimal as much as possible. It feels like a shortcut that leads to a dead end. They are not code, but configuration and, as such, modifying configuration should not require recompiling the code. Back to our particular discussion, AFAIK, we are not doing multiple roles per implementation. That, indeed, would probably not work with the javax Priority annotation due to lack of specificity. I do see the advantages of typed annotations, but also the need to be aware of more and more annotations, as they come, when our usecase is pretty simple and would be well satisfied by the javax Priority one. That is the main reason why I looked for a more generic solution instead of just making a new annotation for the document initializer use case. I find it uselessly polluting. I`d love to hear more opinions on this :)

Thanks, Eduard > >> Priorities on other behaviors that are added to a component (for example >> through interfaces like Initializable or Disposable, interfaces which are >> not components themselves) should provide their own specialized >> (behavior-driven) priority annotations (e.g. @DisposePriority, >> @InitializationPriority, etc.). >> >> Note: If we want to explore the possibility of using our own generic >> Priority annotation, we need to consider the fact that multiple > annotations >> on the same java class is only supported [1] starting with java 1.8. > Until >> then, the commonly used workaround [3] seems cumbersome to use. > > Yep, I’d really not like to use a generic annotation with the namespace > being specified. I much much prefer typed annotations. > > Thanks > -Vincent > >> Thanks, >> Eduard >> >> ---------- >> [1] http://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/annotation/Priority.html >> [2] http://bugs.java.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7151010 >> [3] >> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1554112/multiple-annotations-of-the-same… >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:41 AM, vincent(a)massol.net >> wrote: >> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> As part of http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-11905, Edy has started >>> using the Java @Priority annotation. >>> >>> This seems very good and I personally didn’t know about this annotation >>> before (maybe it’s been introduced not that long ago?). So for me it > raises >>> the question of: do we want to use this annotation more and how does it >>> compare with what we’ve done so far. >>> >>> I can think of a few places that could have used it: >>> >>> * Macros.get/setPriority(). It should be possible to add support for >>> @Priority and modify MacroTransformation to use that annotation. >>> * Transformations. We have a jira issue opened for adding support for >>> Priority in Transformation’s executions (in TransformationManager). >>> * @DisposePriority (used by ECM). >>> * TranslationBundle.get/setPriority() >>> * … and probably some other places… >>> >>> However, I think there’s a namespacing problem. For example imagine > that >>> we code a Macro and set @Priority on that Macro component. The ECM > could >>> interpret it as a dispose priority while the MacroTransformation could >>> interpret it as an execution priority… >>> >>> Globally I think that use an annotation for expressing priority is > great >>> and much better than what we’ve done in the past with get/setPriority() >>> methods. It’s better because priority is not a business concept and > we’re >>> polluting the business interface with it. >>> >>> Now, in order to fix the namespacing issue, I think that the best > solution >>> is that each module requiring some priority should introduce its own >>> annotation and should NOT depend on the @Priority one from the JDK > (i.e. we >>> ban the usage of it). >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>> >>> W

On 03/12/2015 07:24 AM, Eduard Moraru wrote: annotation class. priorities (i.e. they with aware making uselessly For your love, here's another opinion.

1. I spent a while looking for javax.annotations.Priority, since I didn't see it at http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/javax/annotation/package-summary.h… ... Turns out it's a JEE class that's not in JSE. AFAIK, we're not really using JEE yet, just JSE with a few JEE modules. Am I wrong? If not, do we want to require JEE from now on, or is that annotation available in a Maven Central library that doesn't bring in the whole JEE?

2. I agree with you that this is configuration, not code, thus changing it shouldn't require recompiling code. I'm -0.5 for the original proposal because of this. 3. I'd like to resurect http://markmail.org/thread/mrbmbn45cltfvh57 and enhance/build on top of it. Since we're already using an external file for listing components, and since we already have a kind of priority in that file, why not use that file to also give components priorities. If someone wants to change the priority of a component, all that's required is to add a new file in WEB-INF/classes with the new priority of the component.

Before we discuss a syntax, anybody wants to veto this? example are http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1554112/multiple-annotations-of-the-same… annotation it get/setPriority() -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs