Niclas Hedhman wrote: > yes, better than what I just suggested. > > But, why would it be <T extends ValueComposite>, since we don't have > that restriction elsewhere? Same algorithm could be applied.
Yes, we could, but I think one will be dealing with ValueComposite types more explicitly than with Entity/Composite types. We could relax it though, without any problem. Can you give an example where you'd want to refer to the type with an extended interface rather than the value type? If even one example, then I'm all for it. > Now, question is how we handle this along a timeline; > 0.6 --> I wanted that out soonish. > Better Value support --> in this release or 0.7?? I'll try to push this through ASAP, because I neeeeeds it for StreamFlow UI. Without it it seems reeeeally painful to do editing UI's. How do people do it without helpers like this???! Seems like a lot of manual work... /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
