It would bother me if we added new targets but didn't define what
should happen if a developer uses those targets. E.g. if we added
FIELD as a target for @PathParam then I think we'd have to require
implementations to support that annotation on resource class fields.
That's fine for the per-request resource life cycle but what about
singleton resources...
I think I might have suggested this before but maybe we should think
about a meta-annotation to form the basis of the @*Param annotations
then you could innovate by creating new annotation that use the core
meta-annotation. E.g.
@Source(HEADER)
public @interface HeaderParam {
String value();
}
The spec would specify the relationship between @Source and the target
annotation value. It would also specify where to look for @Source-
annotated annotations but wouldn't restrict where else they could be
used. Then you could add:
@Source(HEADER)
public @interface BillsInnovativeHeaderParam {
String value();
}
Marc.
On Mar 7, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Stephan Koops wrote:
> Yes, I also think so !
>
> Stephan
>
> Bill Burke schrieb:
>> Expressed here: https://jsr311.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?
>> id=34
>>
>> Can you please allow a FIELD @Target for all @*Param and injection
>> annotations? I have a bunch of ideas that I'm trying out and can't
>> "innovate" without this setting.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.