You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tuscany.apache.org by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> on 2007/02/25 21:14:01 UTC
@Property attributes
The @Property annotation currently has two non-standard attributes:
public String override() default "may";
public String xmlType() default "";
I have marked these as @Deprecated but have not removed them as there
are references in our implementation. I think it should be fairly
easy to replace override() with the standard required() attribute but
it looked like it would be more complex to remove the xmlType() one
given its use in the databinding framework.
What do we need to do to remove these?
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: @Property attributes
Posted by Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jeremy,
I'll take care of this, when I sync up the trunk for complex and multivalued
properties later down this week.
Thanks
- Venkat
On 2/26/07, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
>
> > The xml type for a property can be from the introspection of the
> > java class or @DataType annotation if the java class doesn't
> > provide such metadata.
> >
> > +1 to remove the xmlType attribute from @Property. We need to fix
> > the property handling pieces accordingly.
>
> I removed the attribute and updated core to just use the
> SimpleTypePropertyMapper.
>
> I'm guessing that this may have an impact on complex property
> support. Raymond, Venkat is this something you can look at or should
> I dig into it?
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: @Property attributes
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Feb 26, 2007, at 9:12 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> The xml type for a property can be from the introspection of the
> java class or @DataType annotation if the java class doesn't
> provide such metadata.
>
> +1 to remove the xmlType attribute from @Property. We need to fix
> the property handling pieces accordingly.
I removed the attribute and updated core to just use the
SimpleTypePropertyMapper.
I'm guessing that this may have an impact on complex property
support. Raymond, Venkat is this something you can look at or should
I dig into it?
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: @Property attributes
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
The xml type for a property can be from the introspection of the java class
or @DataType annotation if the java class doesn't provide such metadata.
+1 to remove the xmlType attribute from @Property. We need to fix the
property handling pieces accordingly.
Thanks,
Raymond
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Boynes" <jb...@apache.org>
To: <tu...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: @Property attributes
> On Feb 25, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>>
>>> The @Property annotation currently has two non-standard attributes:
>>> public String override() default "may";
>>> public String xmlType() default "";
>>>
>>> I have marked these as @Deprecated but have not removed them as there
>>> are references in our implementation. I think it should be fairly easy
>>> to replace override() with the standard required() attribute but it
>>> looked like it would be more complex to remove the xmlType() one given
>>> its use in the databinding framework.
>>>
>>> What do we need to do to remove these?
>>> --
>>> Jeremy
>> I think we need to remove them as they aren't spec compliant. I can do
>> that today if it makes sense or unless there is another option (e.g.
>> perhaps a different annotation?).
>
> We need to remove them, but that means the code we have that uses them
> needs to be fixed.
>
> I don't see ATM where override fits in - what's the purpose of a property
> that can't be overridden (what in Java would be known as a constant)? I
> think all of its usages can be replaced with required().
>
> xmlType seems to be used in the databinding framework to help in the
> conversion from the property value. As a Java programmer I don't really
> want to have to deal with all this pointy-bracket stuff so the Java type
> of the property should be enough. I don't know yet what the impact on the
> databinding would be if we removed this.
>
> Is this something you're planning on tackling?
> --
> Jeremy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: @Property attributes
Posted by Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org>.
On Feb 25, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Jim Marino wrote:
>
> On Feb 25, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
>
>> The @Property annotation currently has two non-standard attributes:
>> public String override() default "may";
>> public String xmlType() default "";
>>
>> I have marked these as @Deprecated but have not removed them as
>> there are references in our implementation. I think it should be
>> fairly easy to replace override() with the standard required()
>> attribute but it looked like it would be more complex to remove
>> the xmlType() one given its use in the databinding framework.
>>
>> What do we need to do to remove these?
>> --
>> Jeremy
> I think we need to remove them as they aren't spec compliant. I can
> do that today if it makes sense or unless there is another option
> (e.g. perhaps a different annotation?).
We need to remove them, but that means the code we have that uses
them needs to be fixed.
I don't see ATM where override fits in - what's the purpose of a
property that can't be overridden (what in Java would be known as a
constant)? I think all of its usages can be replaced with required().
xmlType seems to be used in the databinding framework to help in the
conversion from the property value. As a Java programmer I don't
really want to have to deal with all this pointy-bracket stuff so the
Java type of the property should be enough. I don't know yet what the
impact on the databinding would be if we removed this.
Is this something you're planning on tackling?
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
Re: @Property attributes
Posted by Jim Marino <jm...@myromatours.com>.
On Feb 25, 2007, at 12:14 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> The @Property annotation currently has two non-standard attributes:
> public String override() default "may";
> public String xmlType() default "";
>
> I have marked these as @Deprecated but have not removed them as
> there are references in our implementation. I think it should be
> fairly easy to replace override() with the standard required()
> attribute but it looked like it would be more complex to remove the
> xmlType() one given its use in the databinding framework.
>
> What do we need to do to remove these?
> --
> Jeremy
I think we need to remove them as they aren't spec compliant. I can
do that today if it makes sense or unless there is another option
(e.g. perhaps a different annotation?).
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org