should we extend the support of these annotations to behaviors and models?
behaviors can benefit from all 4, while models can benefit from
attach/detach ones
im not sure where imodel.detach() would fit then. i would love to keep it
since it makes the contract clear, but it is a bit weird if we support both.
-igor
On 10/30/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/30/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/29/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > yes private or package scope methods should always be called
>
>
> not quiet, package scoped methods can still have overrides, see
> ReflectionUtils.overrides(Method,Method) for some nasty code :)
ahh you are right.
I don't use package scope things a lot but
Package y
class A { void test(){}}
class B extends A { int test(){return 1;}}
fails. (java 4 compile covariant not supported)
but move B to another package:
Package z
class B extends A { int test(){return 1;}}
works..
And then ofcourse the A.test() is nowhere to be found..
so yes if in the same package this works:
void test()
{
super.test();
return;
}
Then it is really as it is protected (instead of what you also could thing
private)
>
> the initial implementation of this is in. it only works on Component so
> far,
> but there is soom room for improvement i think.
>
> for example both requestcycle and session have detach() but no attach(),
> so
> we can extend annotation support to those as well.
RequestCycle doesnt have a detach() (only a private one that is our one
cleanup method)
RC has onBeginRequest and onEndRequest.
Session does have detach. But WebSession also have attach.. Why that is i
don't know....
johanm
