I can see the refactor-safe, auto complete and syntax check implied by using marker annotations. I'm just wondering why should I specify unique service IDs, because it's useless in that case. Don't you agree ?
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo < thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 17:55:35 -0200, Muhammad Gelbana <m.gelb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> It looks like markers aren't sufficient on their own and I still need * >> unique* service IDs for each implementation to successfully define my >> services. >> > > That's correct.. > > > The only good I can see here is that I do not need to specify the service >> ID when injecting the service. So whats the benefit of specifying >> one in the first place ? >> > > You've answered yourself just before the question. :) And a marker > annotation is way harder to type incorrectly than a service name (the > compiler will catch that). Relying on strings for doing this kind of stuff > is bad. > > -- > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.**apache.org<users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
