[weld-dev] Decorator question

[Gavin King]

Look, I just don't see the usecase for what you're proposing.

If you're trying to extend a concrete class, override some of its
methods, and delegate some methods back to the superclass, just make
your subclass an @Alternative and call super.

I simply don't see the usecase for having a whole stack of these
things. I don't think anyone needs this.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Mark Struberg <struberg at yahoo.de> wrote:
> But if (2) is allowed, then the restriction on the Interfaces is pretty restrictive. I cannot see any additional benefit we gain from this restriction and we have to delegate all not-overridden methods via a proxy anyway.
> Can you please give me a hint why this is necessary?
>
> txs and lieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com> schrieb am Fr, 4.12.2009:
>
>> Von: Gavin King <gavin.king at gmail.com>
>> Betreff: Re: [weld-dev] Decorator question
>> An: "Marius Bogoevici" <mariusb at redhat.com>
>> CC: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>, weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> Datum: Freitag, 4. Dezember 2009, 1:56
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:44 PM,
>> Marius Bogoevici <mariusb at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > a) You can still have (2), if AnotherBeanClass
>> implements an interface
>> > AnInterface. It's just that the set of decorated
>> methods is restricted to
>> > the ones defined in the interface.
>>
>> Actually, yes, that's true. I should have said that.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>



-- 
Gavin King
gavin.king at gmail.com
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Gavin
http://hibernate.org
http://seamframework.org