On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> It
> would even be possible to use interface that do not use Qi4j classes at all:
> interface MyValue
> {
> void setFoo(String newValue);
> String getFoo();
> }
Meaning that a "PojoMixin" could deal with mapping getters/setters
style properties to internal state. This would lower the Qi4j impact
in sensitive projects which have a 'low sophistication level' as the
rule of thumb.
IF we could also manage to do;
public class MyValue
{
private String value;
public void setValue( String value ) { this.value = value; }
public String getValue() { return value; }
}
and get that to be 'State' in a generic fashion, and we would get a
huge boost in applicability.
> So, is there any compelling reason to *require* that declared interface must
> extend our *Composite interfaces, knowing that we can always add them to the
> runtime instance on the fly?
Nothing other than the occasional type check in module.entities()
where it happens I stick things in wrong places, but that is not
compelling enough.
I think we should consider this quite heavily.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
