Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
>
>> +1 on this.
>> But for the "normal" FilesystemStore it doesn't make
>> any sense. Should we split the packages?
>> store/persistent
>> store/memory
Just in case you didn't catch it, +1 from me as well.
>>
>> or something else?
>
>
>
> Something else.
>
> What we are talking about here is the difference between Persistent
> and Transient Storage.
>
> The Cache implementation is a hybrid (i.e. uses both semantics).
>
> Therefore both memory and cache would hold to the minimum Store
> interface. If there is anything to be kept persistently, you would
> extend the Store interface to have a new interface that had that
> guarantee as part of the contract.
>
> As regards the size() method, we can specify that it will return -1
> if the underlying store does not support that method.
>
> I think that is the best way in the long run--who knows we may want
> to support it in the future. Just because we don't need it now, doesn't
> mean we should do development acrobatics to not support it.
>
>
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
