On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Alexander Klimetschek
wrote:
> Felix wrote:
>>> ...(3) Maybe we can find a better name for the AdapterMethodProvider
>>> interface -- something
>>> which is more in line with the AdapterFactory service name.
>>
> What about simply "AdapterProvider"?...
Good idea,
On 01.07.2013, at 12:13, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> ...(3) Maybe we can find a better name for the AdapterMethodProvider
>> interface -- something
>> which is more in line with the AdapterFactory service name.
>
> I don't have a better name for now, and the service is really a
> provider of
Hi Felix,
Thanks for your comments!
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> ...(1) I think the @AdapterMethod annotation should be just called @Adapter.
> Having an
> annotation on a method is called "...Method" is strange. And maybe it should
> be in a separate package.
M
Hi Bertrand
Cool stuff. Let me add some comments:
(1) I think the @AdapterMethod annotation should be just called @Adapter.
Having an annotation on a method is called "...Method" is strange. And maybe it
should be in a separate package.
(2) The AdapterMethodProxyManagerImpl class should verify
Hi,
Following up on Olaf Otto's excellent suggestions for simpler/cleaner
adapters at CQCon, I have created a prototype (in my whiteboard) that
handles @AdapterMethod annotations - you basically just need to
annotate a method like
@AdapterMethod
public Bar adaptToBar(Foo f) { ... }
in a serv
