Hi there,

I've been using @Type & wondering if there's a reason why it takes a classname String rather than a Class object? A Class object would participate in code refactoring easier than classname Strings, and also reduces the verbosity:



Instead of:



We could also reduce it further by renaming the type() annotation method to the default annotation value() method:



Although I see @Type's destined for further methods, so maybe this step isn't appropriate.

The only reason I can see for choosing classnames over classes is that the UserType's don't have to be in the project's classpath, but surely this is typically due to bad project structure?

Mark

Actually type may refer a typedef name and not a class.

This is true.. ;) Couldn't both be supported?:



Just feel it'd be a shame to miss out on rich parameter types by mirroring mapping XML.

I've not decided yet. I try to follow the EJB3 spec stype for now

Sure, just thought it worth discussing whilst in alpha-stage. Keep up the great work with annotations, it's a joy to use.