On 26 Oct 2011, at 20:04, Linda DeMichiel wrote:
>
>
> On 10/23/2011 10:15 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>> Sorry for the delay on this, I thought my messages were getting through but on talking to Linda, it appears they never arrived ;-)
>>
>> Hi Linda et al,
>>
>> I've collected some feedback internally at Red Hat/JBoss. The general consensus was that:
>>
>> * that adding the ability to configure more resources inside deployments is definitely something we should do
>> * in general people prefer XML or fluent, programmatic API for config over annotations, but there is a significant minority who like annotations
>> * however, no one thought annotations for configuration were a bad thing
>> * that we, without question prefer the typed version of both the annotation and the XML over the properties version
>> * that there are concerns that the obeying the annotation/xml attributes is too optional for vendors right now
>>
>> Regarding where to place the XML file, I wonder why the application.xml file / web.xml files cannot be reused - we already have a proliferation of config files, and it's quite important to not add to this, as it further steepens the initial learning curve.
>>
>
> Yes, I think the consensus has been along these lines.
>
>> Further regarding your multi-tennant questions:
>>
>> * annotation based configuration of what may be modified is very ugly and I don't think we have an acceptable proposal there yet
>> * XML based config looks good
>>
>
> Now superseded -- we believe we can keep the XML simpler as well.
>
>> Finally, have you considered a programmatic, fluent API used to configure resources? We've found these to be very popular with users.
>>
>
> As Bill noted, we need this info at deployment time.
I'm not sure this prohibits the use of a fluent API. There is nothing to stop us calling Java code at deployment time?