Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60499 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2009 19:08:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jan 2009 19:08:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 36374 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2009 19:08:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 36279 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2009 19:08:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 36270 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jan 2009 19:08:56 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 11:08:56 -0800 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 (athena.apache.org: domain of grek@tuffmail.com designates 216.86.168.183 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.86.168.183] (HELO mxout-08.mxes.net) (216.86.168.183) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:08:48 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.125] (unknown [82.210.157.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 58320D05AF for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:08:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <496CE6B1.6020108@tuffmail.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:08:33 +0100 From: Grzegorz Kossakowski User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Subject: Re: [c3] Pipeline results References: <49509326.3030108@apache.org> <4961C6A8.5000705@apache.org> <49623399.6050408@apache.org> <49624116.3020009@apache.org> <496301FB.3010608@apache.org> <496609EB.3040804@apache.org> <496884CC.8040203@tuffmail.com> <49689550.5080608@apache.org> <496BB17A.1080802@tuffmail.com> <496CD6AF.2030209@apache.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Peter Hunsberger pisze: > > I guess part of the debate is whether it is worth defining some > additional method, eg: > > CocoonOutput execute( CocoonInput genericInput) throws ?; > > or > > Object execute( Object genericInput) throws ?; > > I really can't see that the CocoonOuput and CocoonInput are anything > more than marker interfaces and this of course means that more > standard objects have to be wrapped so I think the second version is > preferable. But that certainly doesn't buy you anything as far as > pipeline contracts are concerned for traditional Java. However, I do > think that perhaps this opens up some longer term possibilities for > Aspect oriented inspection across the pipeline so maybe it is actually > worth adding? You have got a point, it's exactly about this. The problem is (that my code shows) that this kind of thing, looking simple at the beginning results in rather ugly constructs in Java... At least I couldn't make it more concise... -- Best regards, Grzegorz Kossakowski