I have in principle no objections, but would like to not include this in 1.0.
Cheers On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > One of our developers recently tried to annotate a regular Java class with > @Concerns. While that doesn't work, I can't really think of any reason why > it could not be made to work, with some limitations. > > The main trick would be that we will subclass the Java class, and in so > doing we can add Concerns on top. This can be useful for some cases where > you want to use plain Java objects, such as Swing or other UI objects, or if > you simply don't want to go all the way to use Composites, but even so get > some of the benefits (basically skip mixins). > > If we use subclassing as the main implementation idea, then it would be > possible to do: > * Generic concerns (InvocationHandler style) > * Generic sideeffects > * Constraints (this would be REALLY cool!) > * Non-generic concerns (preferably using interfaces, but possible even > without) > * Non-generic sideeffects (preferably using interfaces, but possible even > without) > > So basically most of the features would be possible. The main thing missing > would be mixins, but as above, for Swing UI classes that's not really > applicable anyway. I think it would make the learning curve quite lower, as > you don't need to get into actual composites, but can stick to "POJO"s to > begin with. > > WDYT? > > /Rickard > > _______________________________________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev > -- 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
