Hi,
Here is my late answer
> ISSUE 1: Should we support the use of annotations for resource
> configuration
> (in addition to DataSourceDefinition) or should we require that resource
> configurability metadata be specified in XML?
yes it's interesting for testing purpose to have annotations.
I think that it's better to give to developers the choice event if there
are some drawbacks like having a database password stored in the class file
> ISSUE 2: If we support the use of annotation, which of the above
> approaches should we take -- resource-specific or generic?
Resource specific is great for type safety also I will reply to your new
mail about that topic
But it should be interesting to consider generic approach if we need to
add extra resource to the platform like vendor specific stuff or JCA
which may use the generic form.
>
> ISSUE 3: How should we name the standard properties? Do they require
> a "package"-specific prefix?
Yes a package specific prefix. It will avoid errors without workaround
if a property name has different meanings
>
> ISSUE 4: If we take a generic approach, should we use this for
> DataSourceDefinition as well, treating the existing DataSourceDefinition
> annotation and XML as "legacy"?
Yes we should use the same approach.
>
> ISSUE 5: Which XML format should we use? Resource-specific or generic ?
Well, I would like to have both ways.
>
> ISSUE 6: Should we support the use of annotations for the specification
> of per-tenant reconfigurability?
Yes for testing
>
> ISSUE 7: If we support the use of annotations for the specification of
> per-tenant reconfigurability, which approach should we take:
> (1) Generic ResourceDefinition annotation
> (2) Resource-specific annotations, using separate typed elements
> (3) Resource-specific annotations, using ResourceElement approach
> (4) Other?
(1)
>
> ISSUE 8: Which approach should we take for the specification of
> per-tenant reconfigurability using XML: type-specific XML elements
> or generic resource-definition elements?
generic to add extensions
>
> ISSUE 9: Should resource configuration definitions be embedded in
> the existing descriptors or should there be a separate XML descriptor?
It would be interesting to be able to configure resources by an external
configuration mechanism (which is not embedded in the module)
Thus allowing to get the same binaries running with different
configurations provided by an external provider.
This is what is provided by OSGi framework with Configuration Admin Service.
But if it's just another XML file embedded, no. This should go in the
existing descriptors.
Regards,
Florent