Is it really realistic to think that a pool would support multiple object types? I've never really seen that in practice, but I guess it could happen. Just seems weird to me.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Brent! > sounds reasonably good, the only worry I've on it is about the method > > <V> V borrowObject(K key); > > because I don't know the type of V; speaking in therms of examples: > > new MyKeyedObjectPoolImpl<String>().borrowObject("one") = ??? > > So the APIs have to be improved following the Jame's suggestions. > Have a nice day! > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Brent Worden <[email protected]> wrote: >> The javadoc on KeyedObjectPool states 'A keyed pool pools instances of >> multiple types.' However, the new parametrization on KeyedObjectPool allows >> for only a single instance type. >> >> To allow for pooling multiple typed instances, should the instance type >> parameter be removed from the interface declaration and placed on the >> relevant method declarations? In other words, replace: >> >> public interface KeyedObjectPool<K,V> { >> ... >> } >> >> with: >> >> public interface KeyedObjectPool<K> { >> >> <V> V borrowObject(K key); >> >> <V> void invalidateObject(K key, V obj); >> >> <V> void returnObject(K key, V obj); >> ... >> } >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Brent. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
