Continuing with my monologue, once we merge the model into BeanImpl, I
also want to review the Injectable stuff, I don't think that is quite
right, it should probably merged into the the annotated* stuff or
merged into BeanImpl.
I want to do producer methods first, then consider this, as at that
point I will have a much clearer picture of what is sensible (that was
the "motivation" for this - I didn't know where I was going well
enough back in June).
WDYT?
On 6 Nov 2008, at 10:53, Pete Muir wrote:
But I still think the abstraction over reflection is useful
(annotated*) not least because it encapsulates all the logic re.
meta-annotations and fixes the class hierarchy.
On 6 Nov 2008, at 10:41, Pete Muir wrote:
> I agree, it's on my todo list (to merge model and BeanImpl) to one.
>
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 06:33, Gavin King wrote:
>
>> Pete,
>>
>> would you be able to explain what is motivating the use of a
>> "3-layered" approach to the Bean implementations?
>>
>> I'm finding the resulting parallel class hierarchies really
>> difficult
>> to work with. In particular, I got totally stuck on the
>> implementation
>> of MethodConstructor.invoke() for producer methods.
>>
>> I really think the code would end up a lot more elegant if we
>> flattened stuff out into the Bean subclasses...
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>> gavin.king(a)gmail.com
>>
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
>>
http://hibernate.org
>>
http://seamframework.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> webbeans-dev mailing list
>> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> webbeans-dev mailing list
> webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev
_______________________________________________
webbeans-dev mailing list
webbeans-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/webbeans-dev