Mailing-List: contact river-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of dan.creswell@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=D6UADaEwDpDKTE0G+a6Kn8z0T+wHvtg0RnRgNWnVozf8UaK4/GwHJoivvovliZ7YcI
         gF4LMrqIQD/PRIN8RDcdWzalmzTUYX5o96HAH8fwa3kn/69gyVtu2pEAIaUAX9SodO4E
         XLL/LbibZwK1CfRVLXBWiPzx7ZAxzP7wiy65g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4D0F5BCB.40805@qcg.nl>
References: <1292659919.3679.22.camel@Nokia-N900-51-1>
	<AANLkTi=ovLx2ydG06FkFeZ0_K0GO5P7SCV2YcgH-sgRr@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D0DB6BD.4040907@zeus.net.au>
	<AANLkTinfb+pgxeWOJvoyimESVm2WFs+zavbaCZHKM9N8@mail.gmail.com>
	<991195.53568.qm@web33808.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<AANLkTimvhVPC+N0rjhxWgR2ru6H+nHwEOD6D428TzujP@mail.gmail.com>
	<1292831408.5966.4.camel@Nokia-N900-51-1>
	<4D0F5BCB.40805@qcg.nl>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:49:14 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=M_YtVKw4-p-eS47zncBLdW8C9rY733RMaBB4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Space/outrigger suggestions
From: Dan Creswell <dan.creswell@gmail.com>
To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f6cfb41f12ab0497d7c9b9

--001485f6cfb41f12ab0497d7c9b9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I can understand your confusion! I don't feel like we have opposing views.
Rather we have a few proposals for differing levels of use of generics and a
bunch of concerns around each proposal relating to:

(1) How beneficial they are versus cost of implementation.
(2) All the dark corners we create as the result of unclear specs or
effectiveness of generics at runtime or user expectations.
(3) Whether or not a meaningful set of common cases could be tackled.

What one writes up from that I'm not sure. Maybe the various proposals and
the comments in respect of each....

Cheers,

Dan.

On 20 December 2010 13:36, Sim IJskes - QCG <sim@qcg.nl> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

--001485f6cfb41f12ab0497d7c9b9--