Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Will it be generic?? I am a bit tired now, but the SCM would implement > Configuration, no??
Correct. It's a bit tricky for the mixin to figure out what the T generic type is, but I made a quick spike and it seems doable, with the only problem being that it requires use of SPI interfaces > Either way, I agree this communicates intent a LOT better, and we are > generally in favour of explicit intents than the "abstract away > reality" in the name of "because we can" like others do. Agree. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
