> From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo Simons
>
> Leo Sutic wrote:
> > +0.1 I ***hate*** client-side validation of container contracts.
>
> yup. You're thinking of the TransientFactory as provided by the
> container. If you see it as provided as a component
OK, then it makes sense.
> Note it's optional here, too (client is not required to
> call provides()).
Can't believe I missed that. Change vote to +0.9.
> > +0.5 I ***hate*** client-side validation of container contracts, but
> > at least it is optional here.
>
> yup. I just hate pooling :D. Does anyone know of any programming
> language or framework or application where it is less ugly?
Java 1.5 with generics.
// Bastardized C++/Java mix because I'm too lazy to look up
// the correct syntax.
template< typename T >
interface TransientFactory {
T get ();
void put (T object);
}
TransientFactory<MyComponent> factory = ...;
MyComponent comp = factory.get (); // No cast, typesafe.
> >>did you ever get the metadata for an argument-by-name association
> >>working properly?
> >
> > What? Like the example above? Sure.
>
> yep. Is it in commons-attributes?
Yes.
I recommend that you checkout from cvs and compile. I've added some
convenience functions and some other small good things since last.
Shameless plug: It even has named parameters!
/**
* @@Dependency(optional=true)
*/
(Realized via JavaBean setters and a seal() method to make the attribute
immutable.)
> I'd like to see how you made it
> happen...I made the choice not to use attributes 'till 1.5, but I'm
> still interested how for things can be streched....practical
> magic is a
> hobby of mine :D
>
> > * @@.return MyAttribute ()
>
> do you have use case for that as well? Can't think of any.
Just for completeness.
/LS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
