[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-17199?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17556722#comment-17556722
]
Ivan Bessonov commented on IGNITE-17199:
----------------------------------------
[~ktkale...@gridgain.com] I don't think that improving something here is
necessary. Wildcard types is integral part of Java type system, it's not a bad
thing. Over-engineering everything because of several "<?, ?>" occasions in
code won't make product better IMO.
> Improve the usability of the abstract configuration interface
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-17199
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-17199
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Kirill Tkalenko
> Priority: Major
> Labels: iep-55, ignite-3
> Fix For: 3.0.0-alpha6
>
>
> *Problem*
> Consider an example of generating configuration interfaces (**Configuration*)
> for an abstract configuration.
> Configuration schemas:
> {code:java}
> @AbstractConfiguration
> public class BaseConfigurationSchema {
> @Value
> public int size;
> }
> @Config
> public class VolatileConfigurationSchema extends BaseConfigurationSchema {
> @Value
> public double evictionThreshold;
> }
> {code}
> Configuration interfaces:
> {code:java}
> public interface BaseConfiguration<VIEWT extends BaseView, CHANGET extends
> BaseChange> extends ConfigurationTree<VIEWT, CHANGET> {
> ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
> }
> public interface VolatileConfiguration extends
> BaseConfiguration<VolatileView, VolatileChange> {
> ConfigurationValue<Integer> size();
> }
> {code}
> This implementation allows us to work with the inheritors of the abstract
> configuration as with a regular configuration (as if
> *VolatileConfigurationSchema* did not extend *BaseConfigurationSchema*), but
> when working with the abstract configuration itself, it creates
> inconvenience.
> For example, to get a view of the abstract configuration, we will need to
> write the following code:
> {code:java}
> BaseConfiguration baseConfig0 = ...;
> BaseConfiguration<?, ?> baseConfig1 = ...;
>
> BaseView baseView0 = (BasePageMemoryDataRegionView) baseConfig0.value();
> BaseView baseView1 = baseConfig1.value();
> {code}
> Which is not convenient and I would like us to be able to work in the same
> way as with the *VolatileConfiguration*.
> *Possible implementations*
> * Simplest is to leave it as is;
> * Creates an additional configuration interface that will be similar to
> *BaseConfiguration*, for example *BaseConfigurationTree*, but it will be
> extended by *BaseConfiguration* and all its inheritors like
> *VolatileConfiguration*, then there may be confusion about whether to use
> *BaseConfiguration* or *BaseConfigurationTree* in the end, so we need to
> decide how to create a name for such an interface;
> ** *BaseConfigurationTree*;
> ** *AbstractBaseConfigurationTree*;
> ** other.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)
