Re: PUT DATA
Arne Vajh=F8j wrote:
Lew wrote:
Arne Vajh=EF=BF=BDj wrote:
Maybe I am the only one in the known universe that don't know.
X a = new X(aa);
X b = new X(bb);
test(a,b);
void test(X a,X b) {
}
How should the annotation look like, how should it be put on and
how do I get it in test?
I don't understand your question "How do I get it in test?"
How do I inside the test method retrieve the different
annotations on a an b?
I know how to put an annotation on the type X that I can get in
test. But that is the same for both a and b. Roedy needs a
different annotation (value).
I don't think I have ever seen that done with instances.
Take a look at JPA:
@Column(name="SURNAME")
private String lastName;
@Column(name="GIVENNAME")
private String firstName;
Is that not annotating a field? And annotations can annotate a local var=
iable, too.
It's not annotating 'String'.
Is that not what you wanted?
Not unless one can call a method with firstName and lastName and
inside that method retrieve the two column names.
You retrieve annotations via reflection, but that is neither relevant to wh=
at I was answering
nor something you normally want to do.
I was answering your assertions that annotations only apply to a type. That=
's just wrong.
Clearly you can annotate fields, local variables, constructors, methods, ..=
..
Annotations are METAprogramming. They're handled outside the code that is a=
nnotated. By other code.
You don't retrieve the annotations inside the method. You get other behavio=
r, like automagically
having a connection to the correct table element. SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO=
RETRIEVE IT.
That's the whole point of having the annotation. If you want to retrieve th=
e value, don't use annotations.
Or with @NonNull you might get compiler-time explosion over a possibility t=
hat the variable could be
null, or a runtime error if it is without having to explicitly code for it.=
Again, the point is you do the
annotation so the code inside the method doesn't have to deal with it.
Use annotations correctly and your question vanishes. Your assertion that a=
nnotations only apply to
types is already wrong.
--
Lew