[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_12409263 ] Norman Richards commented on JBSEAM-2775: ----------------------------------------- Ok, I've integrated something based on this. I spent a good amount of time researching how other systems handle namespace to package mapping and thinking about how we can do something that is reasonable but not confusing. What I checked in allows two kinds of mappings. The first, and what I think should be the java:packageName URIs. I found a couple precedents for using URIs of this form, so I'm quite comfortable with that one. It's about as clear and as terse as can be. I've also decided to include the http: URL mappings, but I'm not really happy with it. It's not as clear what is going on and I really don't think it's very likely to be a meaningful URL. However, since I'm sure some people will just feel better with a http URL, I guess it's ok. I'd really like to discourage people from using this form. I didn't allow in arbitrary non-HTTP schemes. If there's a reason to allow them, we can add it back in. However, if the user is inventing an arbitrary URL for their namespaces, why not just use the java URI? The third consideration was of using a seam: URI. What we proposed here would have been identical to the java: URI, so I'm not including it now. I think there is a LOT of merit in creating new seam URIs that look like seam:core, seam:framework, etc... For example: <components xmlns="seam:components"> <init xmlns="seam:core" debug="true" /> ... </components> or <components xmlns="seam:components" xmlns:core="seam:core> <core:init debug="true" /> ... </components> The only problem is that the change would have a big effect on users, and it would be difficult to support the http namespaces for easier migration. Each XSD is defined for a single namespace, and so we'd be forcing everyone to do a lot more than just bump references like components-2.0.xsd to components-2.1.xsd. It would clean up the XML considerably though, so it's definitely worth considering. Back to the specific changes here. Let me know if what is checked in meets your needs. I really tried to trim it back because the use case isn't mapping existing URLs to java package names. The goal is to allow the user to construct specific new URLs that seam can understand easily. -- 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