river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <dan.cresw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Space/outrigger suggestions
Date Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:20:27 GMT
Looks good to me.

On 20 December 2010 21:12, <jgrahn@simulexinc.com> wrote:

> Sim, I think I can summarize the debate thus far.
> Two issues:
> 1) Should we use generics within the Javaspaces API?
> 2) There are currently corner cases for generics which do not work in a
> well-mannered fashion with Javaspace.   Should we make changes to Javaspace
> to better account for these corner cases?
> The argument for issue #1 is that it allows us to more fully match the
> method signature to the specification, while also reducing boilerplate code
> for users.
> The principle argument against issue #1 is that by utilizing generics
> within the API, users may believe that issue #2 is dealt with.   That is,
> that by using generics at all, we're implying that in all cases with
> generics we will do the least surprising thing.   And thus, the argument is
> that we should deal with these corner cases first or drop the issue
> altogether.
> Issue #2 exists regardless of action on issue #1, and so minimally a
> documentation change will have to be made to explain foreseeable problems.
> Other possible solutions to issue #2 include bytecode examination (which is
> not a certain solution, but has been mentioned as something to investigate)
> or explicitizing the corner cases in some way such that we might gain
> knowledge that would otherwise be lacking.   Bytecode examination may have
> performance penalties, whereas explicitizing the corner cases would result
> in a larger API either in terms of method arguments or methods.
> If anyone feels that there's something I've left out, feel free to add to
> this summary.
> jamesG
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Sim IJskes - QCG" <sim@qcg.nl>
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:36am
> To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Space/outrigger suggestions
> On 12/20/2010 08:50 AM, Peter wrote:
> > I hope we can now refocus and all work together reimplementing
> > Outrigger based on what we can agree on, rather than be distracted by
> > one thing we can't.
> I'm not sure to which issue we cannot agree on. I'm not even clear on
> which are the opposing views. I would like to consolidate the current
> consensus in a document for the website, even if it means that we have
> to document two opposing views. Generics is not going away as a topic,
> so we better document what we have right now.
> Anybody in support for this method?
> Gr. Sim

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