[
http://team.ops4j.org/browse/QI-307?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17368#comment-17368
]
Niclas Hedhman commented on QI-307:
-----------------------------------
This old issue doesn't make any sense to me at the moment. Stan, do you recall
what is trying to be solved here?
> Better behaviour for complex generic usecases (related to QI-306)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: QI-307
> URL: http://team.ops4j.org/browse/QI-307
> Project: Qi4j
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core Runtime
> Affects Versions: 1.2
> Environment: Any.
> Reporter: Stanislav Muhametsin
> Fix For: Unknown
>
>
> Currently the exception thrown by Qi4j in scenario described in QI-306 makes
> user think there is a bug in Qi4j. To avoid duplicate issues, this could be
> fixed to produce more meaningful exception (warning about possibility of
> ambigous types later).
> Even more better way would be to have some kind of switch, which would allow
> the developer to take the risk and have the scenarios mentioned in QI-306. I
> for for one am using that kind of scenarios quite a lot in one of my
> projects, and the fix is really just one-line-change (at least in this case).
> I don't think it benefits to act too protectively in this case, but rather in
> "i will let you do it, if you really want" -manner. So if the switch is off,
> the exception is always thrown. If switch is on, then some kind of warning
> could be generated in log.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
http://team.ops4j.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
