Can we rename ThreadContextMap2 to something else, deprecate it, and have it extend the new interface? Or does that break compatibility? Because if we can fix the naming scheme while having "alias" interfaces stay in there (until a theoretical 3.x API), then it'd feel less dirty.
Also, Java 8 would have made this a lot easier thanks to default methods. On 17 January 2017 at 03:14, Mikael Ståldal <mikael.stal...@magine.com> wrote: > BTW, shouldn't we have a putAllValues(final Map<String, V> map) in > ObjectThreadContextMap? > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Mikael Ståldal < > mikael.stal...@magine.com> wrote: > >> I think we named it ThreadContextMap3 since there was already an >> ThreadContextMap2 (which is part of 2.7, and we are stuck with it). >> >> I am fine with renaming it to CleanableThreadContextMap (doing it not). >> But I think it should still extend ThreadContextMap2 since it is not really >> independent of it. >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Also fine with renaming. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 9:07, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I think it was originally standalone and changed to the current >>> extending interface after feedback on the mailing list. >>> >>> I'm fine with standalone interfaces and having the implementation >>> implement multiple interfaces. >>> >>> Remko >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 6:25, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree on not extending interfaces. Some of the other context map >>> interfaces are standalone, and I don't see why TCM2 had to extend anything. >>> >>> On 16 January 2017 at 15:16, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I presume it was named ThreadContextMap3 so there could be a >>>> ThreadContextMap4 since 3 extends 2 and 2 extends the first one. Frankly, >>>> I dislike this practice very, very much. Instead, each interface should be >>>> named as you suggest and NOT extend the prior interface. Instead, the >>>> implementation should declare that it implements each of these. >>>> >>>> Ralph >>>> >>>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Can we come up with a better name before we release this and get stuck >>>> with such a terrible interface name? All it adds is a removeAll(Iterable) >>>> method, so perhaps something like CleanableThreadContextMap or >>>> RemovableThreadContextMap. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> [image: MagineTV] >> >> *Mikael Ståldal* >> Senior software developer >> >> *Magine TV* >> mikael.stal...@magine.com >> Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com >> >> Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this >> message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message >> (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may >> not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, >> you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply >> email. >> > > > > -- > [image: MagineTV] > > *Mikael Ståldal* > Senior software developer > > *Magine TV* > mikael.stal...@magine.com > Grev Turegatan 3 | 114 46 Stockholm, Sweden | www.magine.com > > Privileged and/or Confidential Information may be contained in this > message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message > (or responsible for delivery of the message to such a person), you may not > copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, > you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply > email. > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
