Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-avalon-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 71908 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 08:35:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nagoya.betaversion.org) (192.18.49.131) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Feb 2002 08:35:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 2422 invoked by uid 97); 11 Feb 2002 08:35:11 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2400 invoked by uid 97); 11 Feb 2002 08:35:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Avalon Developers List" Reply-To: "Avalon Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 2386 invoked from network); 11 Feb 2002 08:35:10 -0000 Message-ID: <3C6780B1.6050308@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:28:33 +0000 From: Paul Hammant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avalon Developers List Subject: Re: ComponentManager interface References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Gerhard, It is an idea, but you hint that the change of the return type is back "in" again. The issue here is really Sun's JVM definition of method signature. It includes the method name and params, but not the return type, thus we can;t overload it in that area alone. It we could we'd be doing that and keeping the current interfaces, rather than considering a whole-scale clone as an alternative. Our three choices again, with Gerhard's too. (1) Change Component to Object for lookup method (2) Create a new method in the same ComponentManager interface variations : "lookup2", "resolve" (3) Clone a set of interfaces & exceptions into a new package, either with the same names, or not. (4) Create a new interface in the existing package e.g. GenericComponentManager My order of preference: 1,2,4,3. Note that I have snuck in Stephen's "resolve" proposal as a variation of (2) and looking better all the time. PD> If Sun jumped off a cliff would you do it too ? No, but I think that a "2" suffix is not so objectionable to get around a return type issue. try { MethodNameIssue mni = (MethodNameIssue) jumpOffCliff; } catch (ClassCastException cce) { sout("not the same thing"); } - Paul >Hi, >after reading the last proposals and contributions >I more and more think, this is a little bit hairy, >hasty and "dirty". > >Why don't we branch/tag the current CVS tree and put >this all to 5.0. That would be a clean, compatible and >a no confusion solution. We can start now with 5.0 and >don't have to mess up 4.xx! > >Ok ok, I know some of you are waiting for that feature >and I can feel you pain. But must we therefor mess up >our codebase? > >Just something to think about... > > ~Gerhard > >-------------------------------------------------------------- >By making things absolutely clear, people will become confused >-------------------------------------------------------------- > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: >For additional commands, e-mail: > > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: