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&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