commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [collections] Serializable decorators
Date Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:10:46 GMT
#1 is sufficient IMO.

#2 leads to scary places. For example, collections should really have a
JDK1.4 version that has decorators that add the RandomAccess interface as
appropriate. To achieve that and a serializable interface would require 4
classes:
- implements RandomAccess, Serializable
- implements RandomAccess
- implements Serializable
- none

Since serializable isn't typically checked by programs, it seems OK to
choose #1.

Stephen

From: "Noel J. Bergman" <noel@devtech.com>
> > #1 is easy, #2 will take much longer.
>
> I am short on time today, so I haven't given either much thought.  But
since
> you have, let me ask you this: which way do you feel would be best for the
> long term of the project?  Which is most consistent and "natural", if
> either?
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message