pivot-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Brown <gkbr...@mac.com>
Subject Re: using annotations for binding between XML/Java elements
Date Thu, 14 May 2009 00:14:09 GMT
>> I would suggest the following
>> - default to not needing to specify anything on the @Bind annotation
>> if there is only one @load annotation in the class.
>It's possible to bind to values that were loaded in a superclass (if
>the loaded property is protected or public).  So we can't infer that
>the @Bind refers to the @Load that precedes it.  Though we possibly
>could make the "property" attribute optional and default it to the
>@Load that preceded it.  Greg, thoughts?

Eh...after having converted all of our tutorials and demos to use the new approach, I haven't
found it all that difficult to work with.

>> it's not obvious at first glance that the "property" value on @Bind
>> actually refers to which @load annotation is referenced.
>> - rename the property parameter on @Bind to something like
>> "loadProperty" or "loadField"

>Yeah, it used to be "resource", which was even more confusing :)  I'd
>be fine with "loadProperty", albeit more verbose.

IMO, the "load" is implied, so this seems a bit redundant.

>> Also the "name" parameter on the @Bind annotation doesn't make sense
>> because it refers to the "id" in the wtkx file. Rather just call the
>> field "id".
>Yeah, this was to maintain parity with WTKXSerializer.getObjectByName,
>but your argument just transfers -- why is it wtkx:id but
>getObjectByName()?  Maybe it should be wtkx:name...?

IDs are local to the WTKX file, but names can be scoped via namespace, so name is more accurate.

I agree that the annotations aren't 100% intuitive, but once you understand how they work,
they are very easy to work with.


View raw message