Tom Fennelly [http://community.jboss.org/people/tfennelly] replied to the discussion "Annotation based Action classes" To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/548731#548731 -------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------- Reply to this message by going to Community [http://community.jboss.org/message/548731#548731] Start a new discussion in JBoss ESB Development at Community [http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&...]