On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Peter Ledbrook <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
That's exactly what needs to be figured out. If after investigation the answer is that FIELD cannot be used in any sensible way by default then we don't have to do anything more than to simply add it as a target, but we cannot do that blindly. Kalle
