Gang,
I am going thru testcases and there is a pattern in a couple of them
that can best be described like;;
public interface Abc
{}
public interface AbcEntity extends Abc, EntityComposite
{}
Abc abc = compositeBuilder.newComposite( Abc.class );
This will now fail, as Entities are no longer treated as Composites!!!
They have separate registration and they have different methods in
many places like findEntityCompositeFor().
So, I think we need to nail down what the relationships between these
composite variants are.
IMHO, we might as well take the step full on;
* ServiceComposite - as-is
* EntityComposite - as-is
* Composite - a non-instantiatable supertype, maybe not used at all.
* ValueComposite - an immutable composite. The runtime ensure that
Property instances are not mutable.
* TransientComposite - a mutable, non-persistable composite.
* Any other?
And that the four sub types of Composite are not inheriting each other.
WDYAT?
Cheers
Niclas
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
