db-jdo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig Russell (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (JDO-538) Make more JDO APIs generic
Date Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:42:50 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-538?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12532304
] 

Craig Russell commented on JDO-538:
-----------------------------------

> But given that the compiler will autobox Object[ ] anyway, is there a need to change
the signatures to get the desired effect?

The compiler only autoboxes if the signature is one of the new variable-arity signatures.
I took a closer look and found these signatures that can be changed to autobox, simply by
changing the signature from [ ] to ...

The implementation would also need to change the signature but no other changes would be needed
(the type of the argument inside the method remains e.g. Object[ ]).

In PersistenceManager:

    void deletePersistentAll (Object[] pcs);
    <T> T[] detachCopyAll (T[] pcs);
    void evictAll (Object[] pcs);
    Object[] getObjectsById (Object[] oids, boolean validate);
    void makeNontransactionalAll (Object[] pcs);
   <T> T[] makePersistentAll (T[] pcs); 
    void makeTransactionalAll (Object[] pcs);
    void makeTransientAll (Object[] pcs);
    void makeTransientAll (Object[] pcs, boolean useFetchPlan);
    void retrieveAll (Object[] pcs, boolean useFetchPlan);
    void retrieveAll (Object[] pcs);

In Query:
    long deletePersistentAll (Object[] parameters);
    Object executeWithArray (Object[] parameters);

Any objections?

> Make more JDO APIs generic
> --------------------------
>
>                 Key: JDO-538
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-538
>             Project: JDO
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: api2
>    Affects Versions: JDO 2 final
>            Reporter: Chris Beams
>            Assignee: Craig Russell
>             Fix For: JDO 2 maintenance release 1
>
>         Attachments: jdo-538.patch
>
>
> Several suggestions relating to evolving the API in support of Java5 features:
> 11.6, "Optional Feature Support":
> The current draft specifies the signature
> 	Collection supportedOptions();
> then continues to read
> 	"This method returns a Collection of String [...]"
> This suggests that the signature should be
> 	Collection<String> supportedOptions();
> 14.6.1, "Query Execution"
> I suggest we eliminate
> 	Object execute(Object p1);
> 	Object execute(Object p1, Object p2);
> 	Object execute(Object p1, Object p2, Object p3);
> and deprecate
> 	Object executeWithArray(Object[] parameters);
> in favor of a newly added
> 	Object execute(Object... parameters);
> This new method would seamlessly support any existing calls to the three eliminated methods,
and is a proper replacement for executeWithArray().
> This would would leave us with three (non-deprecated) execution methods off the Query
interface:
> 	Object execute();
> 	Object execute(Object... parameters);
> 	Object executeWithMap(Map parameters);
> A slightly more radical approach to this evolution would have us also eliminate
> 	Object execute();
> because the new varargs method can by definition support calls without arguments,
> and deprecate
> 	Object executeWithMap(Map params);
> in favor of a new
> 	Object execute(Map params);
> because Java can disambiguate between calls to execute(Object... params) and execute(Map
params) just fine.  This is predecated by the assumption that it would never be valid to pass
a Map instance as a first-class query parameter.  That might be a faulty assumption, it might
also just be confusing.
> If all these changes were made, we'd be left with an execution API consisting of just
two methods:
> 	Object execute(Object... params);
> 	Object execute(Map params);
> This is, I believe, technically favorable and cleaner, but technical considerations are
not the only valid ones.  Leaving the no-arg execute() might be friendly to folks that don't
understand varargs, etc.
> 14.8, "Deletion by Query":
> The rationale used above for paring down Query's execute methods could also be applied
to Query's deletePersistentAll methods.  It would be legal and Java5-ish to eliminate the
no-arg deletePersistentAll method and reduce the API down to:
> 	long deletePersistentAll(Object... params);
> 	long deletePersistentAll(Map params);
> ...
> There's a number of other places in the spec changes like the ones mentioned here could
be made, but I might be getting ahead of myself :-)  I'll await comments before touching on
anything else.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message