Ok the example sounds odd. Instead of named @Tagged ( "Safe" ) one could use a custom annotation @Safe. Thats what other DI fw allow. I am not 100% sure if it serves well understanding of the semantics, too.
But it would reduce the String-ification of things. Which i think is usually not appreciated. Toni On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Rickard Öberg <[email protected]>wrote: > On 7/4/11 08:38 , Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Toni Menzel<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Simple example: >>> @Service @Tagged("SAFE") RemoteService service; >>> --> >>> @SafeService RemoteService service; >>> >> >> >> Not supported. >> > > Yet. We do have support for composing constraint annotations, so doing > something like the above to compose other annotations would seem logical. > > On the other hand, it becomes harder to read code if you have lots of > custom composed annotations, since you'd have to look at the implementation > to find out what it does, compared to "@Service @Tagged("SAFE")" explicitly. > Same could be said for composed constraints though. > > Any other viewpoints on this? > > /Rickard > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > qi4j-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/**mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev<http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev> > _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
