While checking this I came across something else somewhat 'odd'. ValueMixinsModel adds explicitly ValueMixin and EntityMixinsModel adds explicitly EntityMixin. Why is this handled hardcoded and not via the regular declarations, as is done for PropertyMixin, AssociationMixin and ManyAssociationMixin? First I thought that perhaps this is to avoid "Mixin Overriding", but it doesn't seem like that either since the MixinDeclaration is purely added and not excluding any existing Mixin which implements these interfaces.
Cheers On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ping!!! >> >> I suggest that we remove UnitOfWork.remove() for now, and if there are >> strong reasons to bring it back we can do that later. > > Ouch!!! > > I was looking at the details. EntityComposite.remove() is the > "callback" Lifecycle.remove(), and shouldn't be called from outside. > > Doesn't that mean that the Lifecycle interface should note be exposed > in EntityComposite and instead be a private mixin that the Qi4j > runtime calls, if present? > > > This actually makes the bug even stranger... digging. > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
