On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:38 PM, Marc Hadley wrote:
> So far I've seen one positive response to this suggestion.
> Personally I'm fairly ambivalent, on the one hand it seems like a
> nice shortcut where it will work, on the other hand the status quo
> is simpler to learn.
>
> Any other opinions either for or against ?
>
Will not most @*Param declarations be on method/constructor
parameters. If so we will be removing a static type check. Is that a
big deal? for these cases is it not better to report the error at
compile time?
Paul.
> Marc.
>
> On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Stephan Koops wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>> Should we make the value of @*Param annotations optional when
>>> used with fields and bean properties. E.g. should:
>>>
>>> @QueryParam String foo;
>>>
>>> be equivalent to:
>>>
>>> @QueryParam("foo") String foo;
>> I think it is a good idea.
>>> Unfortunately this won't work on method parameters since their
>>> names are not preserved in class files.
>> IMO a runtime environment should give a strong warning or fully
>> reject the class.
>>
>> best regards
>> Stephan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_jsr311.dev.java.net
>