Richard Wallace wrote: > It would be great if we could also do the same thing with Properties. > Have a @Property annotation so that we don't have to do the same thing > with the Location.name. And how about ManyAssociations? > > In general, I'd like to see this be the direction things go in because > the Property<type>, Association<type> and ManyAssociation<type> have > always seemed a little invasive.
What you call "invasive" I would call "clear". Instead of having the old "everything is a POJO" attitude, we want to try and call a duck a duck, rather than using implicit rules. This discussion between you and Edward has been really discouraging, because it shows how easy it is to slip back into the old thinking. It also shows why it is important for us to have the somewhat elitistic approach to not let everyone into the core of Qi4j, because what we are trying to carefully construct can be brought down way too easily, out of sheer chance. I've seen it happen before too many times. It is important to begin by asking the question that Niclas posed: what is the REAL problem you're trying to solve. Rather then quickly going off into some really strange stuff that completely disregards all the insights and conclusions we have drawn over the past year or so. This has been a good reminder. Thank you. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
