+1 On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Rickard Öberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > > I am going through the API, and found the unused Asynchronous > annotation. The idea was to allow SideEffects to be marked as > Asynchronous so that they could be executed asynchronously. But this has > not been implemented, and I am now leaning more towards letting the > SideEffect always be synchronous, and instead it will have to trigger > asynchronous execution itself, internally, if it so wants to. > > So, my suggestion is to remove Asynchronous. Anyone against this? > > /Rickard > > _______________________________________________ > 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
