On 6/9/09 3:11 PM, Manik Surtani wrote:
> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
> @Target( { ElementType.TYPE})
> public @interface ConfigurationElement {
> String parent();
> String description() default "";
> Class<?> readParserClass() default Void.class;
> }
A parent of "infinispan" denotes a root, I suppose? And this would be
hard-coded in your doclet, etc?
What about multiplicity? E.g., you can have several <namedCache ...
/> elements under <infinispan ... />.
Yeah, sorry forgot name() attribute here. We might not need parent. Will
see.
>
> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME)
> @Target( { ElementType.METHOD})
> public @interface ConfigurationAttribute {
> String parentElement();
> String name();
> String allowedValues() default "";
> String defaultValue() default "";
> String description() default "";
> }
parentElement -> element? Attributes don't have parents. :)
AllowedValues - I am guessing this is not used for validation, but
instead a simple message for generated docs? Otherwise this starts to
look a lot like JSR-303.
I meant containing element, an element that attribute belongs to. Yes
for allowedValues.
Also, as a preference thing, I recommend addressing ISPN-89 first,
since ISPN-96 seems like a lot of additional work. With -89 in place,
we would at least have proper generated documentation sooner. :)
Yes, 96 is a lot
of work. WIll first finish 89 and by the time we are
done with 89 more details about 96 will crystallize.
Vladimir