Mailing-List: contact dev-help@beehive.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Beehive Developers" <dev@beehive.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of ekoneil@gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.197 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=uSDPDugCuzoZan+h0OoG1bHHXkUnSl0N61ShlWpb9Li8wffHZJccG5gTF1S1PRzyfRuB2JTd12DDbIgkB4O9XDXn6UjYRaS+H19aD9wAIVxd0QGQrYiwPTH7bh1JHEj/WlEwDzH3WJ9U5ay06q81nuxWPV1AlLiFkDJIaYSRXG4=
Message-ID: <e9ac83540604031513j93ea81emd84c94a73ca0ff01@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 16:13:45 -0600
From: "Eddie O'Neil" <ekoneil@gmail.com>
To: "Beehive Developers" <dev@beehive.apache.org>
Subject: Re: @Control and BEEHIVE-1087
In-Reply-To: <ecaa4efd0604031351t6394279fi44302890c786c267@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <e9ac83540603311258h4252f9cfna90b40599c4901b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ecaa4efd0603311309k143166ddg1cbba65c819f29d3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e9ac83540604031311y49edec5aka90ab10e3e4a3d95@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ecaa4efd0604031319k38b63ff7y43ddf408b46c33a0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ecaa4efd0604031351t6394279fi44302890c786c267@mail.gmail.com>

  Oh, yeah -- good point.  I shot that mail off w/o thinking about it
much.  :)

  Too bad it's not possible to constrain the annotation to have an
"annotatedwith" keyword or something.  Given that, you're right --
we'll leave it as is.

Eddie


On 4/3/06, Chad Schoettger <chad.schoettger@gmail.com> wrote:
> After taking a closer look, it appears that this won't work since a contr=
ol
> interface class does not extend the @ControlInterface annotation.
>
>  - Chad
>
> On 4/3/06, Chad Schoettger <chad.schoettger@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Good point, I think it defnitily should, I'll go ahead and update it.
> >
> >  - Chad
> >
> >
> > On 4/3/06, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Chad--
> > >
> > >   Thanks for fixing that -- one question:  Should the "interfaceHint"
> > > annotation contain a generic wildcard like:
> > >
> > >   Class<? extends ControlInterface> interfaceHint() default
> > > ControlInterface.class ;
> > >
> > > That way, the value of the type is constrained to be a subclass of
> > > ControlInterface.
> > >
> > >   Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/31/06, Chad Schoettger <chad.schoettger@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > Hey Eddie,
> > > >
> > > > I have some time to take look at this one.  I'll go ahead and start
> > > working
> > > > on a fix, assuming no one on the list has any issues with this chan=
ge.
> > > >
> > > >  - Chad
> > > >
> > > > On 3/31/06, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jess--
> > > > >
> > > > >   Heh...that's a pretty interesting problem.  After looking at th=
e
> > > > > repro, it seems like this is the case that doesn't work:
> > > > >
> > > > > src/
> > > > >   a/
> > > > >     FooControl.java
> > > > >     FooControlImpl.java
> > > > >   b/
> > > > >     FooControl.java
> > > > >     FooControlImpl.java
> > > > >   ControlClient.java
> > > > >
> > > > > where ControlClient has something like:
> > > > >
> > > > >   @Control
> > > > >   private FooControlBean _fooControl;
> > > > >
> > > > > If I understand this correctly, the problem is that the
> > > > > ControlClientAnnotationProcessor takes a best guess when it can't
> > > find
> > > > > an exact match for the name of the Control's interface type.
> > > > >
> > > > >   An "interfaceHint" attribute would allow the AP a chance to
> > > resolve
> > > > > the type if the type isn't otherwise available from the field's
> > > > > declaration.  The above example would then look something like:
> > > > >
> > > > >   @Control(interfaceHint=3Da.FooControl.class)
> > > > >   private FooControlBean _fooControl;
> > > > >
> > > > > This would give the AP an "out" (if you will) to handle cases lik=
e
> > > that
> > > > > above.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm fine making this addition -- thoughts from anyone else?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eddie
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>