Right, but I am still not sure clarity increases, since generic types variants can't override each other there is no ambiguity. I think I want to keep the types without package names and without generic type information.
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 2:09 AM, Paul Merlin <paulmer...@apache.org> wrote: > Le 2017-03-31 05:02, Niclas Hedhman a écrit : > >> The full format would have been; >> >> Composition Problems Report: >> message: No implementation found for method >> method: java.util.Map<java.lang.String, java.lang.Integer> >> doAnotherThing(String name, int value) >> types: [Person,ValueComposite] >> >> (i.e. toString on a ParameterizedType) which I find quite annoying. Seldom >> enough the package name should be needed. >> > > Ok. I was thinking about our Classes.simpleGenericNameOf(Type type) > utility method that should make it easy to get: > > Composition Problems Report: > message: No implementation found for method > method: Map<String, Integer> doAnotherThing(String name, int value) > types: [Person,ValueComposite] > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java
