On 2010-09-19 17.35, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
However, as it is written, the @Capitalized annotation is on the
name() method, and hence being at the "wrong" level. To make it work
as intended, an implementation of Nameable is needed, where the set()
method is provided and marked @Capitalized.
BUT, I wonder if we should open a "New Feature" request, where the
above will actually work. I.e. Assuming that the above fairly common,
and the solution rather messy, it would be neat to allow the above
kind of pattern.
So, should we add this, or not, for 1.3??
What I have found in my own code is that I don't like having these kinds
of things on the data itself. I very much prefer it on the methods that
update the data. Any reason why one should not do that?
/Rickard
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
