[jbossseam-issues] [JBoss JIRA] Commented: (JBSEAM-2775) package-info.java should be optional:"convention over configuration"

[ http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBSEAM-2775?page=comments#action_12409459 ] Norman Richards commented on JBSEAM-2775: ----------------------------------------- We can worry about docs once the functionality is settled. I'm happy to support default mappings for HTTP URLs, but I think the key here really is to be clear about why the functionality is being introduced. Again, it's not important that we provide mappings for many different kinds of URLs. It's only important that a Seam user can construct a URL that maps clearly to a Java package and that the user would be happy with that URL. I didn't mean to remove the ability to strip WWW from the code. I haven't checked, but I thought that was still there. But, to consider whether this is wise, I am drawn back to considering that a namespace URL should generally be a canonical simple URL. Take "http://jboss.com/products/seam/core" for instance. There really should not be a www in there, even if we might generally consider http://www.jboss.com/ to be the "correct" URL in a web browser. Putting the www in a namespace creates an entirely new namespace, potentially causing problems with XML tools. (the XML namespaces must match EXACTLY) It seems quite reasonable, to me, to instruct users to construct a reasonable URL without the www. Nonetheless, I intended to leave the www stripping in there because in general I don't think it's going to harm anything. I think it's fine for us to have a user use http://company.com/dept/product if they wish. I would prefer they use java:com.company.dept.product, but I can see enough value in the HTTP version that supporting it is reasonable. Trying to do anything fancier than that seems like a waste of time. If you want something fancier that isn't mapped automatically, use @Namespace. Finally, I got rid of some of the validating because it didn't seem to serve a useful purpose. Someone uses an invalid namespace, they'll get warnings and failures either way. Why should we trouble ourselves with a static list of java keywords? I did like the "_" for "-" replacement, as that seems quite reasonable, as do most of the mapping recommendations from sun. (But, if you were class.com, would you really be likely to use _class.com as your java package?) Feel free to continue to submit improvements here. I'm not against further changes, but we do need to justify the features in terms of what we really want users to do with it. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira