[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-125?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13429120#comment-13429120
]
Dave Beech commented on MRUNIT-125:
-----------------------------------
No problem, thanks - I did think it was a little strange and probably not
intentional. It would be best if you submit a brand new patch on top of trunk
with the methods removed.
I have no strong objections to the methods being final, but I think if we do it
we should be consistent (rather than just making the odd one or two methods
final and leaving the rest extendable). Otherwise it may get confusing for
users as to why we've done that.
Does anybody else have an opinion?
> reduce duplicate code related to fluent methods with generics
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MRUNIT-125
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRUNIT-125
> Project: MRUnit
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Jim Donofrio
> Assignee: Bertrand Dechoux
> Fix For: 1.0.0
>
> Attachments: mrunit-125-patch.diff, mrunit-125-spoiler.diff,
> mrunit-125.diff
>
>
> There is a lot of duplicate code in order to provide fluent style with
> methods. We could reduce the duplicate code with generics by adding an
> unbound type parameter T to TestDriver and then all the fluent methods could
> go in TestDriver but return type T. The base classes, MapDriverBase etc,
> would just pass the T on so you would have:
> public abstract class TestDriver<K1, V1, K2, V2, T>
> public abstract class MapDriverBase<K1, V1, K2, V2, T> extends TestDriver<K1,
> V1, K2, V2, T>
> public class MapDriver<K1, V1, K2, V2> extends MapDriverBase<K1, V1, K2, V2,
> MapDriver<K1, V1, K2, V2>>
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
