[weld-dev] Decorator question

[Mark Struberg]

Gavin,

my main concern is to pass the TCK.

Beside that, I really don't like to propose new use cases (even if there is one: with @Alternative, you'd need to subclass every class down the type hierarchy yourself, with @Decorator 'extends', you'd be able to decorate the baseclass and that would be applied to all subclasses automagically). 

Maybe the TCK folks can look at the CatDecorator, and add a bit more Decorator tests, so we have a set of facts we can both rely on? txs!

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: "Mark Struberg" <struberg at yahoo.de>
> CC: "Marius Bogoevici" <mariusb at redhat.com>, weld-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Datum: Freitag, 4. Dezember 2009, 17:51
> 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
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. 
http://mail.yahoo.com