Thatnks Keith.
I'll pull together a wiki page next.
On removing the word "Method" from some of those annotations... sure. It does look a bit odd. Not sure why I did that actually :)
Re adding the @Action annotation... we can do this, but there's no "need" for it at the moment. The annotated actions currently work without a Type level annotation and also without implementing/extending any interfaces/classes. An example of the most basic action...
public class MyAction {
@ProcessMethod
public void processOrder(Order order) {
//.....
}
}
So... what currently marks this as an action is the @ProcessMethod annotation (to be renamed) on the processOrder method. I toyed with adding an @Action annotation but it seemed a bit redundant until such time as we support some type level annotation data. In fact... we could drop the requirement of having to have the @ProcessMethod in situations where the action only has a single method e.g....
public class MyAction {
public void processOrder(Order order) { //.....
}
}
On @BodyParam and @PropertyParam... yep... you need to pay extra for those and my paypal account is..... :) Sorry about that... I forogt to commit them... they're in there now.
On the process method arg naming annotation(s).... I agree, using those for examples is clearer for sure.