commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Elijah Zupancic <eli...@zupancic.name>
Subject Re: [chain][v2] clever context - follow-up
Date Wed, 14 Sep 2011 02:12:48 GMT
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
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message