Unfortunately, I don't think so. The Scala reflection is completely separate from Java reflection. We reuse the PojoTypeInformation, though.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > Okay. My last question was aiming towards whether we can consolidate code > there and not have two redundant paths (in scala and in java) > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Sorry, for the long wait, I had to retry some of my earlier tests. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: >> > Some questions to understand that better: >> > >> > - When can the Scala type extractor not determine the same than the Java >> > one? What additional cases could the Java Type Extractor find? >> >> For a reason I could not discover yet, a Scala Macro cannot see >> private fields of >> a Java Class. Thus the Scala TypeExtraction logic would falsely assume that >> a type is a Pojo while it is in reality not. Those cases, the Java >> Extractor >> can handle. >> >> > - How do you distinguish between a Java-created and a Scala-created >> class? >> >> Scala Reflection Type has a method "isJava": >> tpe.typeSymbol.asClass.isJava == true >> for Java-defined classes >> >> > - Does it make sense to use the same logic for both, i.e. in Java we >> give >> > it the "Class" or "Parameterized Type", in Scala we give it the >> "ClassTag" >> > or list of class tags for all generics? >> >> What exactly are you suggesting? >> >> > Stephan >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> Right now, the Scala Type Extraction logic falls back to using the >> >> Java TypeExtractor when it encounters a class that was written in Java >> >> or when it cannot analyse a Scala Type. I did this because the Java >> >> TypeExtractor might catch some additional cases. The other option >> >> would be to directly fall back to the GenericTypeInfo when a type is >> >> defined in Java or when we cannot analyse a type. >> >> >> >> What do you think? How should we handle this? >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Aljoscha >> >> >>
