> level. I'm pretty sure that I can replace new
> HashMap with our own implementation at runtime. More
> on this later.
Can't wait that is the point Adrian and juha pitched in paris overwriting the classpool so that HM is return with JBossHM... see other thread in this forum :) itis so beautiful
Ok, I implemented it. The question is should it be used?
So, right now, you don't have to attach the transaction or security interceptor. All you have to do is declare metadata tags.
<class-metadata group="transaction" class="POJO">
Is it too implicit? Too hard to debug? The cool thing about this is once XDoclet integration is done, all you have to do is
* @jboss-aop.metadata group="transaction" trans-attribute"Required"
public void someMethod();
Just add that, and transaction support is added. No need to declare a pointcut for the Tx interceptor.
personally I have been blabbing about the XDoclet integration for like 9 month. So yeah commit it if ready, that is CLEARLY useful for those doing pure metadata tag declarations. Also I have been blabbing to the press about the issue and saying how we copied a lot of the .net tag declaration approach... so yeah hell, it is just another implicit way of defining interceptors and one that will fit right in with Andy's work
This is very cool.
I was trying to think of something similar, but
for a different reason.
Can we use a similar mechanism to define
payload when we do remoting, or does
this belong at a different level?