Generics for 'MetaBean' and 'MetaProperty'

[nipafx]

We already discussed why MetaProperty.set(Object, Object) is not MetaProperty.set(Object, P): because frameworks will routinely deal with MetaProperty<?> making set(Object, ?) unusable; (~> details).

I guess the answer for why MetaBean and MetaProperty are not generic in the bean's type (i.e. MetaBean<B> and MetaProperty<B, P>) is along the same lines but I still can't really come up with it.

Especially if the corresponding methods are either using object (like get(Object) or set(Object, Object) or wildcards (like Class<?> MetaProperty.declaringType()), I can't see a reason against it. Or on favor for that matter: MetaProperty<P> could as well be "ungeneric" . Why the middle ground?

[jodastephen]

My previous experience showed that they caused more pain than gain. However, it is something we should try and see how it works out. So long as use in frameworks isn't impeded and it could provide benefit to some, its worth a go.

[nipafx]

Now that #4 is merged I consider trying this out. I'd basically create two branches and implement both the more and the less generic version. Up- and downsides could be discussed in the pull requests.

Do you think now is a good time or should I wait until some more code exists, namely implementations of MetaBean and the builders for MetaProperty?

[jodastephen]

Lets try the full generics version, <B> on MetaBeans and <B,P> on MetaProperty, as its basically the "right" thing.