Michael Hunger wrote: > When looking at the code I found simliar issues with names of types / classes > / annotations and the like. > Would it also be sensible to introduce a TypeName class for e.g. handling > Class Names. > (or at least an interface which could then either wrap a class or have a > simple string based implementation). > > That would also add an QualifiedName(TypeName, name) constructor or factory > method to QN. > > There are just tooo many strings whirling aroundin qi4j (imho). > > The introduction of this construct could also be done incrementally.
I agree that there are too many strings, and just doing QualifiedName helped a lot. Maybe TypeName will be an equally helpful change to avoid String-hell(tm) >:-) . If you feel it is, then go ahead. /Rickard _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
