Thanks Clement, It'll be a long wait but it's probably worth waiting for...
/Bengt 2010/9/21 Clement Escoffier <[email protected]> > Hi, > > On 09.09.2010, at 21:09, Bengt Rodehav wrote: > > > Clement, > > > > I'm glad you're considering it - it would be really useful. Do you have > any > > idea of when iPOJO 2.0 would be released? Is it 6 months? A year? > > First sorry for this late reply, the mail strangely went out of my radar. > I cannot give you an exact date for iPOJO 2.0. My goal is to release iPOJO > 2.0 in 2011 (June is my first target). > > Right now, I'm collecting requirements, and ideas and starting to write > that down. For sure, inheritance will be part of the new release as well as > new handlers such as a kind of JPA handler... I also want to reduce the > complexity of some mechanisms as the 'component type type' definition. > > Regards, > > Clement > > > > > /Bengt > > > > 2010/9/9 Clement Escoffier <[email protected]> > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> You it is a really good feature. I'm thinking to that one since 1 year > now. > >> Despite I've an idea how to implement this support, it is an important > >> change probably postponed until iPOJO 2.0. > >> Supporting method callbacks is easy but supporting field injection on > >> parent classes is really more tricky. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Clement > >> > >> > >> On 09.09.2010, at 09:26, Bengt Rodehav wrote: > >> > >>> I have the exact same problem. I have generic classes (in a framework) > >> that > >>> do most boilerplate stuff and the intention is to make it simple to add > >> sub > >>> classes with specific needs (most often adding service properties and > >> logic) > >>> - but I can't. I have to copy/paste all the boilerplate code to every > >>> subclass. > >>> > >>> I would really like inheritance support for the annotations too. > >>> > >>> /Bengt > >>> > >>> 2010/9/9 Joel Schuster <[email protected]> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> It seems that iPojo doesn't know how to go up the inheritance tree to > >> look > >>>> for annotations. So if I wish to have an abstract class that has the > >>>> @Provides or @Component or even the @Validate/@Invalidate method > because > >> a > >>>> bunch of them implement things in the same way I cannot. > >>>> > >>>> Am I correct? > >>>> > >>>> - Joel Schuster > >>>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
