This content has been marked as final.
Show 5 replies
-
1. Re: Cosmetic change. MC annotations. Is it worth it?
alesj Sep 14, 2007 6:13 AM (in response to adrian.brock)That sounds reasonable, specially since kernel module is really huge.
Should we then make a separate module, gathering all MC annotations - IoC and additional one's: @JMX, @JNDI, ... ? -
2. Re: Cosmetic change. MC annotations. Is it worth it?
adrian.brock Sep 14, 2007 6:38 AM (in response to adrian.brock)"alesj" wrote:
That sounds reasonable, specially since kernel module is really huge.
It will be nowhere near as huge when we replace all the xml parsing with JAXB annotations. :-) -
3. Re: Cosmetic change. MC annotations. Is it worth it?
alesj Sep 17, 2007 10:34 AM (in response to adrian.brock)"alesj" wrote:
Should we then make a separate module, gathering all MC annotations - IoC and additional one's: @JMX, @JNDI, ... ?
What's the deal with this?
Should I just move the IoC one's to .api. package,
and fix Maven appropriately - to build separate artifact for those annotations?
Or a whole new module? -
4. Re: Cosmetic change. MC annotations. Is it worth it?
alesj Sep 21, 2007 12:00 PM (in response to adrian.brock)OK, I'll be moving all those IoC to annotations to .api. package + fixing kernel's pom.xml to build this annotation artifact separate.
And this should then go into Scott's changes regarding MC beta5 for AS beta3. -
5. Re: Cosmetic change. MC annotations. Is it worth it?
alesj Sep 21, 2007 12:50 PM (in response to adrian.brock)Done.