Re: [webbeans-dev] Re: Rough draft proposal for resource injection

This fragment defines a Bean (with the registered type DataSource). To create the Bean and process the XML, though, some code needs to understand javax.annotation.Resource. The code that understands <ann:Resource> and which generates the DataSource Bean can (and should) be encapsulated and modularized. Nothing in the current spec has that capability, i.e. it's not captured by the Bean concept. To see this, note that <ann:Resource> is currently forbidden by the spec, because it's not annotated by something like @BindingType. In other words, the example is doing something unique beyond the capabilities of the rest of the spec. Or, in a different way, the spec definines the behavior of ann:Resource, and ejb:EJB, not sqlx:DataSource. If the spec defined sqlx:DataSource directly, it would be a Bean, but because you're defining ann:Resource to choose a Bean type for sqlx:DataSource, it's something different. Or, another way, <sqlx:DataSource> is not a simple bean, and the <ann:Resource> specifies what kind of Bean it is. -- Scott > > > I don't understand what we need it for. > > I feel like Bean already provides sufficient pluggability... > > >> Second, the JavaEE annotation types should be defined in their own >> namespace >> for modularity and consistency, not the WebBeans namespace. >> >> <xsql:DataSource xmlns:xsql="urn:java:javax.sql"> >> <ann:Resource xmlns:ann="urn:java:javax.annotation"> >> ... >> </ann:...> >> >> <my:Foo xmlns:my="urn:java:com.foo.my"> >> <ejb:EJB xmlns:ejb="urn:java:javax.ejb"> >> >> <jms:Queue xmlns:jms="urn:java:javax.jms"> >> ... > > I'm OK with that if others are. > > > > -- > Gavin King > gavin.king(a)gmail.com > http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin > http://hibernate.org > http://seamframework.org > > _______________________________________________ webbeans-dev mailing list webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev