commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [chain][v2] clever context - follow-up
Date Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:05:16 GMT
The basic context should be Context<K, V> and then use interface
composition to define other things like:

public interface PropertyContext extends Context<String, Object>,
Map<String, Object>

It can be done... I think :-)

Paul

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Simone Tripodi
<simonetripodi@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Elijah,
> I spent some spare time trying to figure out how to improve the
> Context design, I didn't have a lot of success anyway :(
>
>  * dropping the Map inheritance makes not easy maintaining the classes
> in the 'generic' package;
>  * adding generics in the Context to specify K,V types, makes all the
> rest of the notation not so nice (IMHO), take a look as a sample a
> Command<K, V, C extends Context<K, V>> :?
>
> Do you have more ideas?
> Many thanks in advance, all the best!
> Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http://www.99soft.org/
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Elijah Zupancic <elijah@zupancic.name> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> I don't have any votes as I'm not a commiter, but I would still like to add
>> in my suggestion.
>>
>> After our previous exchange, I'm of the mind that we should use the second
>> option - that is be collection agnostic and work by composition. I may be
>> biased towards defined getters and setters, but I really like to be able to
>> use auto-complete, automatic code refactoring tools and static code analysis
>> tools. If we used only a Map, then the contract for a context becomes a
>> black box of anything. I like the way it is now where you have to implement
>> a Map on your context or extend ContextBase. I may be biased out of habit -
>> if so, please convince me (by proxy everyone else).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Elijah
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Simone Tripodi
>> <simonetripodi@apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all guys,
>>> after mails and mails of discussions, I don't think there is a general
>>> agreement on how Context API should look alike.
>>> At the end of the discussions I figured out that, briefly resuming, we
>>> have following proposals:
>>>
>>>  * be replaced by Map;
>>>  * be Collection agnostic and work by composition.
>>>
>>> Please add what is missing and correct what is wrong; we need to find
>>> a general agreement before to continue working toward the 2.0 release
>>> :)
>>>
>>> TIA, all the best!!!
>>> Simo
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message