Ok, an exercise for future version. Right now, I think we just mark them "internal" and a compatibility note...
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-10-04 12.11, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> >> How internal do we consider this to be? >> >> It is currently sitting in SPI, and if that is the right place, is >> this something we should document for Extension authors, or should it >> be viewed as a Qi4j internal utility. If it is SPI proper (or maybe >> even useful at API level), then perhaps we need to 'refine' it before >> nailing it down. > > The methods are in the same vein as those in the Classes utility in API, so > if you don't mind I think it would fit there. Also, the Classes methods > might also be improved by using the patterns I used in Annotations to make > them more composeable. And Classes might even be split up into > Classes+Methods+Fields utilities, each using these patterns. > > /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
