On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I have no opinion on the matter... 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 _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
