Very interesting!!
On 12/20/06, Ron Piterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Interesting idea with the caveat that it can not be fully validated at
> compile time (all of the extra attributes will need to have default
values
> ... oh and for primtives, its very hard to distinguish a default value
> for a
> provided value).
there is a dirty trick: use int[] integer() instead of int integer();
with a default value of {}. its dirty but it works, and can easily
provide arrays as parameter bindings :)
Cheers,
Ron
>
> On 12/19/06, Ron Piterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Continueing the @Bindings annotation discussion above,
>> it just accured to me: a real profit of a
>> @Binding annotation could be something like:
>>
>> @Binding(name="name",number=5)
>>
>> or
>>
>> @Binding(name="name",bool=true)
>>
>> or
>>
>> @Binding(name="name",type=Object.class)
>>
>> or
>>
>> @Binding(name="name",string="some string")
>>
>> or finally,
>>
>> @Binding(name="name",expression="listener:somelistener")
>>
>> where only expression is evaluated as bindings values are evaluate
>> nowadays.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
