Mailing-List: contact jdo-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Message-ID: <30137345.1192686411013.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Chris Beams (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: jdo-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Commented: (JDO-538) Make more JDO APIs generic
In-Reply-To: <29253486.1191439190783.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JDO-538?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12535839 ] 

Chris Beams commented on JDO-538:
---------------------------------

+1 for the patch, with a couple comments / questions:

1) @deprecated - if this were Java5 only, I'd use the @Deprecated annotation vs the @deprecated javadoc tag.  That said, the javadoc route does work across all versions, so makes sense to use here.

2) in the jdo-signatures text file there are lines like the following:

-    public Object executeWithArray(Object[] parameters);
+    public varargs Object executeWithArray(Object[] parameters);

Would you explain this?  I'm not sure what the purpose of the signatures file is, but there's no keyword 'varargs' in Java, so I must be missing something.

Thanks.

> 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.