Adrian Crum wrote: > --- On Sat, 1/30/10, Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> wrote: >> From: Adam Heath <doo...@brainfood.com> >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r904921 - in >> /ofbiz/trunk/framework/base/src/org/ofbiz/base: test/BaseUnitTests.java >> util/string/UelUtil.java >> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org >> Date: Saturday, January 30, 2010, 4:57 PM >> Adrian Crum wrote: >>>> If you really need to modify variable, then change >> the >>>> generics markup >>>> on context. >>> I appreciate the review and comments, but I think >> you're not understanding the integration. I can't change the >> method signature because it is part of the JSR 245 >> specification, and yes, I really need to write to the >> context because that is the whole point of the integration. >> >> Well, then, the integration is wrong. If that method >> signature is >> part of the spec, then you can't just go and do an end run >> around it >> because you feel like it. > > The context Map that is passed around the framework (in services, mini-lang, > and screen widgets) is referred to as Map<String, ? extends Object>. Yet some > portions of the framework need to write to that Map - it's their job to do > so. So, what do you suggest?
Dig further. You'll find that this supposed read-only map is actually already a copy in places, so if you really do write to it, the changes will just be thrown away anyways. In other cases, the original map that enters the system is already a throw-away. When I originally came up with the read-only generics for service engine calls, I tried to make the maps writable. But upon modifying the entire stack, I discovered it wasn't possible. The service engine made copies in some cases, so the underlying service implementations weren't able to send data back at all to the original caller. To encapsulate this, I made the map read only, by using the ? extends syntax. What kind of modifications do you need to do? Auto-vivification kinda stuff?
