Consider renaming @Value to @Property

• Key: SHALE-191
• Type: New Feature
• Status: Resolved
• Resolution: Fixed
• Priority: Major
• Assignee: Unassigned
• Reporter: Adam Brod
• Component/s: Tiger
• Affects Version/s: 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT
• Fix Version/s: 1.0.3

Description

I find it very confusing to use the annotation @Value for a managed property. I think in terms of the faces-config.xml file, "Managed Beans" and "Managed Properties". If I want to configure a managed bean with Shale-Tiger, I annotate my class with the @Bean. If I want to configure my managed property, I would expect to annotate my property with @Property. Since annotations have a value attribute, it makes sense to me that @Property("#{param.id}") would read as "managed property with value #{param.id}".

In Shale-Tiger 1.0.3, I have to annotate my property with @Value. When I look at my code (@Value("#{param.id}")) , it doesn't read very well. "Managed value with value #{param.id}".

I think it would make more sense to use @Property instead of @Value. I noticed that Craig accidentally used @Property in an email as well, so clearly I'm not the only one who thinks in terms of @Property and not @Value - http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--Shale--tiger---abstract-base-class--p4838056.html :)