Re: [weld-dev] AnnotationLiteral
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.
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>
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