Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 1587 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2007 17:41:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2007 17:41:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 26740 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2007 17:41:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-activemq-dev-archive@activemq.apache.org Received: (qmail 26617 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2007 17:41:24 -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 26608 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2007 17:41:24 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:41:24 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of chirino@gmail.com designates 64.233.184.225 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.233.184.225] (HELO wr-out-0506.google.com) (64.233.184.225) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:41:14 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id m59so1090441wrm for ; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:40:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=dSq8q8CvxMq6W0RaeKUSmFzle5xRRNxxC6eQ+dBqlb4N6tZaFOxDHD9T629+OQaK4oGyB+hh0ojvNJ6L5qj+8YyT7bV2yhDOQ/fpl9Ru+LC2pcmu07mSDkant2mY5HyloEs+svbemguo5CGUmZp0mPkJsOzCgDaPvoHH3yx0WVw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=YKI0zSRz8VpyCMHLR56MMDgRf0NbgCxKerSRuxooWc7YU6iVhIC0nEbPVxLNZ4f3SzIu5FLDMmHX4KkP09iVM97xXzUzMx3bg0zfVyEjDqrmoYCmxjQIVYAVXLhwWzeB0KBrOY0rrG4H7o4xv+1gWmgDPn0E21ILlKnKvnO11xI= Received: by 10.115.74.1 with SMTP id b1mr1495156wal.1175449253579; Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.194.17 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Apr 2007 10:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 13:40:53 -0400 From: "Hiram Chirino" Sender: chirino@gmail.com To: dev@activemq.apache.org Subject: Re: Command and DataStructure In-Reply-To: <9768534.post@talk.nabble.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9768534.post@talk.nabble.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: baf34163e957fa27 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org That's because the transport layer in general can transport any kind of Object. This generalization is being taken advantage by our AMQP implementation. It allows our transport layer to work with AMQP command packets which do NOT extend from the DataStructure class. What might be useful is if we use generics in the Transport interface so that it can become more type safe without loosing the current flexibility. On 3/31/07, Allesmallachen wrote: > > 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. > > -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com