Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 13907 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2007 15:53:41 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 31 Mar 2007 15:53:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 56835 invoked by uid 500); 31 Mar 2007 15:53:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 56806 invoked by uid 500); 31 Mar 2007 15:53:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@activemq.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@activemq.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 56797 invoked by uid 99); 31 Mar 2007 15:53:47 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:53:47 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 72.21.53.35 as permitted sender) Received: from [72.21.53.35] (HELO talk.nabble.com) (72.21.53.35) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:53:37 -0700 Received: from [72.21.53.38] (helo=jubjub.nabble.com) by talk.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HXftF-0005a7-ES for dev@activemq.apache.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:53:17 -0700 Message-ID: <9768534.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:53:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Allesmallachen To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Command and DataStructure MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: Spammails@web.de X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, I was wondering why you don't use the Command and the DataStructure interfaces directly in the method signatures of the parts of ActiveMQ that are concerend with sending and receiving commands and marshalling data. All signatures use the generic Object type. In the implementations that are available, those objects get cast into Commands or Datastructres anyway. So why not making this explicit in the interface definitions as well? best regards, Christian -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Command-and-DataStructure-tf3497340s2354.html#a9768534 Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.