<
jason@steeplesoft.com <mailto:
jason@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&X=3E023C7A0F922F9C1F#16
<
http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0904&L=JSR-314-OPEN&X=3E023C7A0F922F9C1F#16>
(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