> I've thought about it as well. Simply adding the FIELD to the target > is not fine - if you implemented at least initial support for it > (spring, aspectj) then I don't see why not. There was a similar case > when I implemented support for TYPE. I don't personally use AspectJ or > Spring but since we ship with those libraries, it'd be pretty odd to > just add something to the interfaces without the implementation.
Would a default implementation make sense for either Spring or AspectJ applications? I'm not even sure it would be possible with Spring. AspectJ can probably intercept field access though. Peter
