[webbeans-dev] Re: XML configuration format

[Matt Drees]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Gavin King <gavin at hibernate.org> wrote:

> I would like to open up a discussion about the XML format defined in
> chapter 10.
> ...
> I would like to get everyone's thoughts on this issue:
>
> Do you like the existing format?
>

Yes, very much so.  I think it will be a huge win to have typesafe xml
configuration, and I will be very sad if this feature gets dropped.

In addition, web beans is very type-driven, so just about any time I want do
anything in XML, I'm going to be dealing with classes, not strings.  So, if
I have to specify e.g. binding types by the full
"org.ccci.etimesheet.annotations.LoggedIn" everywhere, I'll get some messy,
repetitive files.  I think this isn't as much of a problem for some of the
other specs because they aren't as type-driven as web beans is.


Do you find it confusing? In what way?


I don't think it's confusing.  It will take a little adjustment adjustment
for some people, but I don't think it's difficult.  And like Gavin said,
Seam and Spring do this sort of stuff already, so people have seen this
before.


>
> Have you used this approach in Spring or Seam? If so, how did it compare?


I've used this approach in Seam, and I appreciate how it makes the
configuration code cleaner and more concise.


> How important is typesafety?


Very important.  I've been burned too many times by misspelling a class or
method in an xml doc.


I understand the desire to have consistency between the various types of XML
descriptors in EE 6, but typesafety is more important.

Actually, I'd like to have this style of typesafe xml used in other EE
descriptors, too.  Then we could have typesafety and consistency.  :-)

-Matt Drees
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/weld-dev/attachments/20081221/004907ec/attachment.html