On Dec 14, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
> On 14/12/12 16:01, Bill Burke wrote:
>> Now that we have DynamicFeature, should we ditch @NameBinding?
>> @NameBinding is really just a convenience pattern and could be
>> implemented within a DynamicFeature.
>>
>> Just a thought. Simplifies the spec.
>>
>> The only additional benefit @NameBinding would provide is the ability to
>> dynamically add annotation bindings. But I don't have any use cases at
>> the moment for this.
>>
> Seems like it is the usual code - vs annotations choice so probably both styles needs to be supported
>
> Cheers, Sergey
Personally, I would never opt for DynamicFeature over static name binding. If find the latter easier to use and the resulting code more readable in general. So, -1 on the proposal to ditch @NameBinding.
-- Santiago