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

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

I'm fine with that. A little more verbosity won't kill me, as long as the
functionality remains ;) Sounds good.

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> 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
>



-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
"Keep it Simple"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/seam-dev/attachments/20100414/0adb3531/attachment-0001.html