I did not thought on having a feature like that. Can be great if you can provide some case study for it.
IMHO doing something similar to gin, should not be that difficult. At least when it comes to provide a "factory" for the intercepted classes. What it struggles me a bit more, is how the methods interception are defined. Since you don't want to modify the classes, I guess you less want to annotated their methods. Maybe a good approach is using Matchers as GIN does. I believe this feature is more in the scope of GIN. In fact they have plans to introduce AOP some day. http://code.google.com/p/google-gin/issues/detail?id=38 I'm developing this 'framework' together with a real application. So, the features are a bit driven for the needs of my application. But an integration with GIN is a must someday I will need to face. On Jun 15, 4:56 am, Carl Pritchett <[email protected]> wrote: > IMHO it would be great if you didn't have to add an interface to the > Interceptable classes, but instead created a binding class (something > like a Gin module). Then you could add aspects without changing the > target classes. > > Of course easier said than done. > > > > > The code looks like: > > > {{{ > > public class MyClass implements Interceptable { > > @Intercept(LoggerInterceptor.class) > > public int add(int a, int b) { > > } > > > } > > }}} -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
