[Lift] Re: [Lift committers] Re: Meeting

Lee, The reason that Lift has the richer MappedField and Field objects in Mapper and Record is to programmatically add this kind of functionality to fields. No, it's not PoJos, but it's as syntactically clean and a lot easier to understand/debug. Thanks, David On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM, L

[Lift] Re: [Lift committers] Re: Meeting

I'm currently giving AOP a try here(not in lift). I was looking for a cleaner way to create objects with observable properties. I like that an aspect allows for observable objects that are idiomatic to use and write, and don't require any extra boi

[Lift] Re: [Lift committers] Re: Meeting

> > > > You can impl AOP using many different techniques. I proposed the > simplest one (used by Spring, Guice etc.). Using a regular JDK Dynamic > Proxy (which is the 'build in Java reflect proxy thingy'). What is > your question? > > >> > > >> > So, what does AOP give us that can't be done at ano

[Lift] Re: [Lift committers] Re: Meeting

2009/4/16 David Pollak : > Taking the discussion to the main list > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Jonas Bonér wrote: >> >> 2009/4/16 David Pollak : >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Jonas Bonér >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> 2009/4/16 David Pollak : >> >> > It'd be optimal if you co

[Lift] Re: [Lift committers] Re: Meeting

> >> > I am firmly against anything that re-writes byte-code after the >> compilation >> > phase for production code. Once the Scala-Maven plugin supports >> compiler >> > plugins, then there's a lot of stuff that can be done at compile-time. >> > The scala-maven plugin already supports compiler

[Lift] Re: [Lift committers] Re: Meeting

Taking the discussion to the main list On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Jonas Bonér wrote: > > 2009/4/16 David Pollak : > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Jonas Bonér > wrote: > >> > >> 2009/4/16 David Pollak : > >> > It'd be optimal if you could discuss the JTA stuff in the public >