Hi Alin, for is a reserved word. the to() reads much better when you add metainfo.
module.on( Storable.class ).infoFor(config).to().depth().set(0.0); But its a simple rename so feel free to change to a more fluent language. Michael Alin Dreghiciu schrieb: > I like the fluent API approach but the method names seems pretty > confusing , resulting in a non readable statement as fluent api is > supposed to provide. > > e.g. module.on( Storable.class ).to().depth().set(0.0); If I would not > know what is suppose to do I will be very confused. > > We should find some different names for the methods. Maybe, > module.for( Storable.class ).onProperty().depth().set(0.0); > > Alin > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Michael Hunger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unset is only used during the construction period of immutable properties. >> It should not be there afterwards. >> I fixed one bug locally that the unset value after persisting and rereading >> from the memory store was not longer == >> equal with the constant string (using an enum there helps). >> >> Another problem regarding default values. In my test a entity created by an >> entitybuilder did not use the default >> values? A entity created by a uow contained the correct default values. >> >> >> Regarding default values. I just did a reimplement the configuration of meta >> info and default values as the current >> implementation (and its use afterwards in constructing the entities) seemed >> a bit to complicated. >> I implemented a little DSL for configuration of entities and their default >> values. >> This also allows the extraction of the Entity related config in a local >> variable and removes the need for repeated. >> addProperty().withAccessor() ... calls. >> >> New Syntax. >> >> module.on(Nameable.class). >> infoFor( new DisplayInfo( "Name", "Name of something", "The >> name" ) ). // Add UI info >> infoFor( new RdfInfo( "label", >> "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"; ) ). // Add persistence info >> to().name(). // Select accessor >> set( "Hello World" ); // Set default value >> >> >> I just submit that stuff so you can have a look on it. >> >> WDTY ? >> >> Michael >> >> >> Niclas Hedhman schrieb: >>> Gang, >>> >>> I think we have a problem when it comes to Default Values vs UNSET for >>> Property instances. >>> >>> I have always assumed that Default Value is the value that should be >>> set if not set explicitly. But apparently not here, so I am trying to >>> twist my head around what does default value really mean. My >>> conclusion is that the subject has not been thought thru properly. >>> >>> So, am I right that an unset Property should return the default value >>> from its PropertyModel ??? >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Niclas >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> qi4j-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev >> >> -- >> Michael Hunger >> Independent Consultant >> >> Web: http://www.jexp.de >> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Enthusiastic Evangelist for Better Software Development >> >> Don't stop where you are: http://creating.passionate-developers.org >> We support Software Engineering Radio (www.se-radio.net) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
