GenericConcern, same thing. No real value. Actually in the 3 methods case I was thinking to GenericConcern not GenericSideEffect. Otherwise I do not see the scope of "protected abstract void beforeInvoke( Method method, Object[] args);" in the context of SideEffect? As the side effect is executed after the method invocation (from SideEffect definition) Am I missing something here?
And BTW, even if this two remain is their place in API? Maybe lib framework? Alin On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Alin Dreghiciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If we would go for Niclas proposal I'm for empty methods too, but I >> would rather go for not having this GenericSideEfect/GenericConcern at >> all as I do not see a real plus in having them. >> >> Regarding the Niclas 3 methods, I'm voting -1 as it will force sharing >> the state at instance level instead of method variable in case that I >> need such state. E.g. logging the execution time. > > There are no problems to have member fields storing the state during > the invocation, as if they were local variables. > > Ok, let's hold it off and wait for a comment from Rickard. He might > have some plans. > > > You got a GenericConcern as well... > > > Cheers > Niclas > > _______________________________________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev > -- Alin Dreghiciu http://www.ops4j.org - New Energy for OSS Communities - Open Participation Software. http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java - Domain Driven Development. http://malaysia.jayway.net - New Energy for Projects - Great People working on Great Projects at Great Places _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
