>From: "Dennis Byrne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >XML configuration files do quite well their job and were designed to avoid
> >coupling parametrization stuff in code. Now it seems we return to the point
> >were we started. It seems more a response to .NET than real desirable
> >functionality, as we already had it with external configuration files.
>
> I have to agree w/ this 100%, XML still rocks. After doing my latest project w/
> EJB3 annotations, I don't see much added value.
>
> But the truth is, annotations are very sexy right now. This project isn't
> lacking in users, but I think this would generate a lot more interest in
> MyFaces.
>
>
> >XML configuration files do quite well their job and were designed to avoid
> >coupling parametrization stuff in code. Now it seems we return to the point
> >were we started. It seems more a response to .NET than real desirable
> >functionality, as we already had it with external configuration files.
>
> I have to agree w/ this 100%, XML still rocks. After doing my latest project w/
> EJB3 annotations, I don't see much added value.
>
> But the truth is, annotations are very sexy right now. This project isn't
> lacking in users, but I think this would generate a lot more interest in
> MyFaces.
>
Craig put together some annotations in Shale.
The managed bean registration is really nice and there is support for component, renderers, converters and validator registration. The @Value annotation is also handy.
But, I don't agree that navigation rules should be implemented with annotations.
Gary
> Dennis Byrne
>
>
