+1. This should definitely be fixed.
david
2010/2/3 Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Jason Lee
<jason(a)steeplesoft.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/10 9:13 AM, Kito Mann wrote:
>
> There was a discussion about nested resource library names last year. I
> would say to search the archives, but I don't know if that's possible.
> Anyway, here was the outcome:
>
> Ed:
>>
>
>
>> Yes, you are correct that the resource naming scheme prevents nested
>> resource libraries. Nested resource libraries were not on the list of
>> requirements when we designed this feature back in November of 2007. We
>> will not accept this requirement change at this point.
>
>
> Dan:
>
> So the spec needs to at least be clear that it's not permitted and suggest
> the alternative. Several people reading it didn't understand what to do in
> this case.
>
> IMHO, it's a shame that we can't use the nested structure. Seems like a
> pretty obvious convention instead of configuration thing. I don't know how
> that got missed in the design process.
>
> It would be interesting to find out why that was left out. Was it simply
> an oversight, or are there technical reasons for disallowing that? On the
> surface, it sounds like it would be easy to implement and support, but I've
> not thought too deeply on the topic. Maybe that's something we should fix,
> if we can, for 2.1.
>
We never got to the bottom of why this was left out, but I think there was
a general agreement that it should be fixed. Let's discuss when and get an
issue report filed.
Here is the (not-so-pretty) link to the original discussion:
http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0904&L=JSR-314-OPEN&...
(that reminds me I have some leaning on the JCP PMO to get to).
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
Registered Linux User #231597
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen