You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> on 2010/10/19 18:00:07 UTC
StartupDef vs. ContributionDef
I wonder if we could get rid of StartupDef (introduced in 5.2) and
instead, process @Startup methods as smart contributions to the
RegistryStartup service? I haven't looked deeply at this, just
feeling that less (API) is more.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator of Apache Tapestry
The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: StartupDef vs. ContributionDef
Posted by Tom van Dijk <to...@tvandijk.nl>.
Nothing wasted yet, I'm spending my evening with philosophy ;)
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:56:05 +0200, Igor Drobiazko
<ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please don't waste your time. I fixed it already. I'm running the build
and
> going to commit it in few minutes.
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Tom van Dijk <to...@tvandijk.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:00:07 -0700, Howard Lewis Ship
<hl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I wonder if we could get rid of StartupDef (introduced in 5.2) and
>> > instead, process @Startup methods as smart contributions to the
>> > RegistryStartup service? I haven't looked deeply at this, just
>> > feeling that less (API) is more.
>>
>> I think that's doable, could check it out since I've been in that piece
>> of
>> code anyway for the last few days.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: StartupDef vs. ContributionDef
Posted by Igor Drobiazko <ig...@gmail.com>.
Please don't waste your time. I fixed it already. I'm running the build and
going to commit it in few minutes.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Tom van Dijk <to...@tvandijk.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:00:07 -0700, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I wonder if we could get rid of StartupDef (introduced in 5.2) and
> > instead, process @Startup methods as smart contributions to the
> > RegistryStartup service? I haven't looked deeply at this, just
> > feeling that less (API) is more.
>
> I think that's doable, could check it out since I've been in that piece of
> code anyway for the last few days.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Best regards,
Igor Drobiazko
http://tapestry5.de
Re: StartupDef vs. ContributionDef
Posted by Tom van Dijk <to...@tvandijk.nl>.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:00:07 -0700, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I wonder if we could get rid of StartupDef (introduced in 5.2) and
> instead, process @Startup methods as smart contributions to the
> RegistryStartup service? I haven't looked deeply at this, just
> feeling that less (API) is more.
I think that's doable, could check it out since I've been in that piece of
code anyway for the last few days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: StartupDef vs. ContributionDef
Posted by Igor Drobiazko <ig...@gmail.com>.
Good idea. I'll look at this. I was anyway going to add @Advise and
@Decorate annotations.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if we could get rid of StartupDef (introduced in 5.2) and
> instead, process @Startup methods as smart contributions to the
> RegistryStartup service? I haven't looked deeply at this, just
> feeling that less (API) is more.
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>
> Creator of Apache Tapestry
>
> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
>
> (971) 678-5210
> http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Best regards,
Igor Drobiazko
http://tapestry5.de