Re: [seam-dev] Need for Common Annotation-attribute scanning/parsing utility (or CDI API/SPI)

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On 14 Apr 2010, at 18:59, Dan Allen wrote: > > > /** > > * Inspect AnnoatedElement <b>element</b> for a specific <b>type</b> > of annotation. This > > * also discovers annotations defined through a @ {@link Stereotype} > and the CDI SPI. Having found > > * the annotation, it is inspected for a member with name > <b>memberName</b>. > > * > > * @param element The element to inspect > > * @param annotationType The annotation type to check for > > * @param memberName The name of the member to look for > > * @param expectedMemberType The expectedType of the member > > * @param metaAnnotation Whether the annotation may be used as a > meta-annotation or not > > * > > * @return The annotation member's value or null if no matching > annotation was found > > * @throws IllegalArgumentException if element, annotationType, > memberName or expectedMemberType is null > > * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the annotationType does not > have a member of memberName > > * @throws ClassCastException if the value of memberName cannot be > cast to expectedMemberType > > */ > > public static <V> V getAnnotationMemberValue(AnnotatedElement element, > final Class<A> annotationType, String memberName, Class<V> > expectedMemberType, boolean metaAnnotation) > > > > WDYT? > > > > I'm not sure I understand why we need a separate method to get an > annotation member value. It requires specifying a string name. Why can't we > simply return the annotation instance and then allow the value to be read by > invoking the member method? > > Actually, I agree with you here, but Lincoln complained mightily about > this last night so I relented. Ok, let's strike this method. > > > I'll admit I was excited about the more fluent method names that Lincoln > had in his code. Do we really need to have these long method names? Seems > like pomp and circumstance to me. I suppose that this is what Java has > always been about, so why take the garb off the queen? Boo. > > I believe the consistency with the Java Reflection API is important (BTW > Lincoln's API wasn't really fluent, just had shorter names). True, it was just shorter methods. Okay, without the long "getAnnotationMemberValue", the method names that are left are reasonable ;) -Dan -- Dan Allen Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action Registered Linux User #231597 http://mojavelinux.com http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen