On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Well, we have a general guideline to separate the structural assembly (i.e. the composite) from the type used by clients. If this applies "in general", why wouldn't it apply to Values? >> 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. Excellent. Nothing like something really bad rash... > 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... Yes, it IS!! And one reason why people feel Web UIs are 'easier'. Cheers Niclas -- http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
