Awesome. I stand corrected. ...i'm going to use that by the way. :)
On Sep 7, 12:40 am, "Marcelo Fukushima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i think you just have to get the Method object and call
> getGenericReturnType. If its a fixed type (one that is bound at
> compile time), you can cast it to ParameterizedType and call
> getActualTypeArguments, witch in turn will return an array with the
> type parameters as Class objects. Its a really ugly piece of code.
>
> Method method = Bla.class.getMethod("getStringClasss");
> ParameterizedType type = (ParameterizedType)
> method.getGenericReturnType();
> System.out.println(type.getActualTypeArguments()[0]);
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Christian Catchpole
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You can? You could reflect the value on the method result, but I
> > thought you couldn't reflect it on the Method itself. If so, please
> > demonstrate.
>
> > On Sep 6, 7:21 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 'annotations are truely retarded'.
>
> >> Wow, Viktor. You should get that seething bile looked at.
>
> >> You CAN actually reflect the Blah in:
>
> >> public Class<Blah> getObjectThingy(Object object);
>
> >> You cannot reflect the Blah in:
>
> >> public <Blah> Class<Blah> getObjectThingy(Blah object);
>
> >> On Sep 5, 9:36 am, "Viktor Klang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> > Yes Chris, annotations are truely retarded.
> >> > However, as with all things retarded, they usually have lots of zealous
> >> > worshippers.
>
> >> > But like always, Sun does not fix what Sun has broken.
>
> >> > Cheers
> >> > Viktor
>
> >> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Christian Catchpole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > Don't get me started on Annotations.. what annoys me about them, is
> >> > > that while they are soft data implemented as first class classes.
> >> > > Meaning, to inspect a runtime annotation, the annotation must be in
> >> > > the classpath. You might forgive that (claiming its a dependancy)
> >> > > Yet the annotation simply contains Strings and/or primitives in some
> >> > > kind of template Seems to be the worst of both worlds - No real types
> >> > > in that you are forced to reference say, class names as Strings, but
> >> > > the annotation itself is a real type which must resolve. I don't
> >> > > claim to be an expert on annotations, havent used them that much, but
> >> > > perhaps they would have been nicer if they were value holders but
> >> > > simply permitting no code...
>
> >> > > @ReturnClass( Blah.class )
> >> > > public Class getSpecialClassThingy(Obect thing) {
>
> >> > > This is just off the top of my head. Forgive all errors of logic. :)
>
> >> > > You could return Class<Blah> but that's not reflectable anyway.. but
> >> > > that another thread.. :)
>
> >> > > On Sep 5, 8:15 am, Casper Bang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > We used to say "If it compiles, the crap works". Now a day, with all
> >> > > > the annotation cr... stuff, this doesn't seem to hold true any
> >> > > > longer.
>
> >> > --
> >> > Viktor Klang
> >> > Rogue Software Architect
>
> --
> []'s
> Marcelo Takeshi Fukushima
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
