Convention over Configuration

Now a days every software using or claiming to use convention over configuration.

Is anybody paying any attention on negatives of this paradigm?

1. To utilize a piece of software which is based on Convention over Configuration paradigm, one requires deep familiarity of software.
2. Refactoring becoming difficult and specifically if at any point of time, need arise to change convention, developers have night mares.
3. Bloated code is very normal because of binding the logic with convention. This pain can be reduced if conventions are made configurable.
4. This paradigm makes software very restrictive in view of “ only one way” of doing the things.

Few of the well known examples of softwares using Convention over Configuration paradigm are:
1. Java Bean
2. XDocLet
3. EJB
4. Spring
5. Hibernate
6. Grails
7. Ruby on Rails
8. Apache Camel
9. Struts
10. Maven
11. Apache Wicket

Reference:
1. http://softwareengineering.vazexqi.com/files/pattern.html
2. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd419655.aspx
3. http://elegantcode.com/2009/11/28/convention-over-configuration/
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration
5. http://marekblotny.blogspot.com/2009/04/convention-over-configuration.html
6. http://codebetter.com/jeremymiller/2009/01/24/convention-over-configuration-in-msdn-magazine/
7. http://www.javalobby.org/java/forums/t65305.html
8. http://www.sonatype.com/books/mvnref-book/reference/installation-sect-conventionConfiguration.html
9. http://weblogs.asp.net/sfeldman/archive/2009/07/20/convention-over-configuration.aspx