On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Lex Spoon<sp...@google.com> wrote: > This looks like a straightforward and easily understood way to name > calls to runAsync. What do others think?
As a brainstorm-quality idea, what about requiring that runAsync invocations are in their own methods (as you mentioned) but not requiring an annotation? Any given method already has a fully qualified name (it's even globally unique within the program) so why introduce yet another name in the annotation? Some compiler magic to make this happen might be a nice-to-have: RunAsyncRef ref = new RunAsyncRef(ClassContainingMethod.class, "methodName"); You could statically determine that it's valid, use ref as a token to refer to fragments as necessary, and avoid having to specify package.ClassName.methodName because you take advantage of the import statements. Dunno what you'd do with it, of course. Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
