Hi Paul! yes it can be done, of course :) I'm not convinced anyway by the heavy notation that, modifying the Context, would impact the Command and Filter classes. I think it is because just a matter of taste :P Feedbacks/suggestions/patches are welcome, if you want to provide a solution feel free to fill an issue and attach a patch!! TIA, all the best! Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://www.99soft.org/ On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote: > The basic context should be Context<K, V> and then use interface > composition to define other things like: > > public interface PropertyContext extends Context<String, Object>, > Map<String, Object> > > It can be done... I think :-) > > Paul > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Simone Tripodi > <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: >> Hi Elijah, >> I spent some spare time trying to figure out how to improve the >> Context design, I didn't have a lot of success anyway :( >> >> * dropping the Map inheritance makes not easy maintaining the classes >> in the 'generic' package; >> * adding generics in the Context to specify K,V types, makes all the >> rest of the notation not so nice (IMHO), take a look as a sample a >> Command<K, V, C extends Context<K, V>> :? >> >> Do you have more ideas? >> Many thanks in advance, all the best! >> Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Elijah Zupancic <eli...@zupancic.name> >> wrote: >>> Hi Everyone, >>> >>> I don't have any votes as I'm not a commiter, but I would still like to add >>> in my suggestion. >>> >>> After our previous exchange, I'm of the mind that we should use the second >>> option - that is be collection agnostic and work by composition. I may be >>> biased towards defined getters and setters, but I really like to be able to >>> use auto-complete, automatic code refactoring tools and static code analysis >>> tools. If we used only a Map, then the contract for a context becomes a >>> black box of anything. I like the way it is now where you have to implement >>> a Map on your context or extend ContextBase. I may be biased out of habit - >>> if so, please convince me (by proxy everyone else). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Elijah >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Simone Tripodi >>> <simonetrip...@apache.org>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all guys, >>>> after mails and mails of discussions, I don't think there is a general >>>> agreement on how Context API should look alike. >>>> At the end of the discussions I figured out that, briefly resuming, we >>>> have following proposals: >>>> >>>> * be replaced by Map; >>>> * be Collection agnostic and work by composition. >>>> >>>> Please add what is missing and correct what is wrong; we need to find >>>> a general agreement before to continue working toward the 2.0 release >>>> :) >>>> >>>> TIA, all the best!!! >>>> Simo >>>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
