Re: [weld-dev] AnnotationLiteral

On 8 Nov 2009, at 13:21, Pete Muir wrote: > Gavin, I wonder if we should actually have AnnotationLiteral and > TypeLiteral actually implement Serializable as this places a burden > on > all subclasses, that they *must* be serializable (clearly this is not > enforced, but it is correct, and the error messages users get will be > a lot worse). > > Rather I wonder if *Literal should support subclasses which wish to > implement Serializable. To do this we would just indicate this is the > case in the javadoc and remove Serializable. BTW this is the generally recommended approach for APIs. > > WDYT? > > On 8 Nov 2009, at 09:31, Gavin King wrote: > >> Well, I couldn't sleep, so I fixed it. >> >> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Gavin King <gavin.king(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >>> So I've made some improvements to TypeLiteral and >>> AnnotationLiteral, >>> including making them serializable. >>> >>> I need to get some sleep now, but at the last minute I noticed that >>> AnnotationLiteral is pretty broken for primitive array valued >>> members. >>> You can't do Object[].class.cast() on primitive arrays. >>> >>> We need to fix that before release. >>> >>> -- >>> Gavin King >>> gavin.king(a)gmail.com >>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin >>> http://hibernate.org >>> http://seamframework.org >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Gavin King >> gavin.king(a)gmail.com >> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin >> http://hibernate.org >> http://seamframework.org >> _______________________________________________ >> weld-dev mailing list >> weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev > > _______________________________________________ > weld-dev mailing list > weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev