avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leo Sutic" <leo.su...@inspireinfrastructure.com>
Subject RE: Chaining Methods and Fortress
Date Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:32:54 GMT

> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org] 
> ex-C++ developers 

*Quiet! Don't tell anyone!*

> The one place where this convention was broken (NIO) ended up 
> being regretted by the EG members who pushed through the change.

I'm not familiar with this. Do you have a link? The reason
I'm asking is that I have written code that way, and I would
like to know if there's some issue with it that I have 

Is it related to subclassing (i.e. subtype can not override
return type, even to subtype of supertype's return type)?
> If you still want it then I can just create an alternative 
> mechanism that follows standard idioms but I would prefer 
> to only support one mechanism.

I would prefer to keep the code as-is. The code you're changing
is three months old and thus released with Fortress 1.0, irrespective
of the technical merits of one solution over another.


If the issues surrounding the idiom is serious enough I have no problem
fixing it (I can do the proper deprecation cycle). What is your estimate
is it serious enough to warrant deprecation, renaming of methods (as
you can not overload on return type)?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

View raw message