On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Tom Schindl <[email protected]>wrote:
> [...] > > > I'm not yet for or against this particular approach (invoke(*) instead > > of events) but I don't see the difference between using annotations for > > the lifecycle vs annotations with values. ex: @AboutToShow vs > > @Lifecycle(IWorkbenchConstants.ABOUT_TO_SHOW) except adding extra code > > to the invoke(*) processing. > > > > I'd still go with general annotations. We could define @Lifecycle and > > have the lifecycle annotations like @AboutToShow extend @Lifecycle > > (allowing them to be found more easily). > > > > Annotation don't support inheritance! > > OK, that kills the extend idea, but doesn't change my initial statement. I'm against adding a second layer of complexity to the annotation processing we have when it doesn't seem any better to me. PW -- Paul Webster Hi floor. Make me a sammich! - GIR
_______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
