+!, f'shizzle, we need to remizzle & dizzepricate. (I don't know why I wrote my comment using Snooplang. I must be punchy after talking for 4 days straight.)
--- cbeams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't fully reviewed this proposal, but I do > know that using > implements/@Implements only served to confuse me in > the past. I kept > thinking: isn't this information superfluous? > Should the enhancer > have been able to figure this stuff out by static > analysis? > > So if it is in fact not needed, I'm a big +1. > > Thanks, > > - Chris Beams > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 8:45 AM, Craig L Russell wrote: > > > Hi Ilan, > > > > +1 to remove/deprecate the implements element and > @Implements > > annotation. > > > > If no adverse comments are received by Tuesday > October 16, it's gone. > > > > On Oct 4, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Ilan Kirsh wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> The 'Implements' annotation (and the equivalent > XML element) > >> remind me > >> the 'persistence-capable-superclass' XML > attribute that is > >> deprecated now. > > > > Yes, for JDO 1, we tried to have it possible to > enhance classes > > when not all of its dependencies (superclasses and > implemented > > interfaces) were available for loading and > analysis. In this > > environment, it was necessary to explicitly > declare which > > interfaces were implemented because you could not > load all of the > > directly implemented interfaces to see which > persistence-capable > > interfaces were indirectly inherited. > > > > But now, enhancement requires access to the entire > inheritance tree > > and it makes sense to also require the implements > tree as well. > >> > >> If persistence capable interfaces are marked as > such by annotations > >> (or in the XML metadata), why should we have this > duplication? > >> > >> Implementations should be able to find > implemented persistence > >> capable > >> interfaces as they find a super persistence > capable class. > > > > True, and I support deprecating the xml attribute > and removing the > > @Implements annotation. > > > > Unless someone can justify why there would be any > semantic > > difference between explicitly declaring the > interfaces versus the > > enhancer finding them. The only thing I can think > of is whether an > > explicitly named interface would have an extent > managed, but I > > think that you can only query over the extent of > classes/interfaces > > that themselves declare that an extent is managed. > > > > Craig > >> > >> Ilan Kirsh > >> ObjectDB Software > >> http://www.objectdb.com > >> > >> > > > > Craig Russell > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System > http://java.sun.com/products/jdo > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > >
