But you still can implement ConcernOf<InvocationHandler> yourself and these should be listed as well as "generic concerns".
Michael Rickard Öberg schrieb: > Michael Hunger wrote: >> I think we should keep it. I removed it locally and it was much more pain to >> do all the SideEffectOf<InvocationHandler> >> implements InvocationHandler myself (first I forgot the implements >> InvocationHandler). So I reverted the removal. >> >> For developers writing their own generic side effects/concerns these classes >> would certainly help going. > > There's that, and having the base class also makes it easier to ask the > question "show me all the generic concerns" since all you do is find the > subclasses of that, rather than usages of ConcernOf. > > /Rickard > > _______________________________________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
