Hi Fred
On Wednesday 13 March 2013 12:23 AM, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
> On 03/12/2013 02:24 PM, frowe_at_us.ibm.com wrote:
>> You're correct, there are other ways to annotate an RA which can't be
>> duplicated in ra.xml, and I didn't mean to make that the focus of the
>> question. The point was, when the required-config-property element was
>> added to the spec, it appears to have been intentionally limited to the
>> AS javabean. When we deprecated the xml element in favor of @NotNull,
>> we didn't apply that same limitation to the annotative version, was
>> that intentional. Ie, does it make sense to allow RA developers to
>> declare config properties for other RA javabean types as mandatory?
>>
>
> I think it makes sense, and we should add a note about the @NotNull on a
> RA, MCF and AO object doesn't map to a <required-config-property>
> element in the ra.xml - due to the schema restriction.
I don't know why required-config-property was limited only to
ActivationSpec in the 1.5 spec.
However when we brought in @NotNull as a mechanism to indicate that a
config property is mandatory, we felt that it could be placed on any
config property and that we don't need to limit it to ActivationSpec
alone. Does this help?
Thanks
--Siva.
>
> Best regards,
> Jesper
>