On Feb 28, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Tim Eck wrote:
It's not super important, but would the marker interface be a wicket
type or a terracotta type? I could imagine it could be either
actually,
just wondering which one you had in mind.
Clusterable extends Serializable? Why the coupling?
Finally, (and please excuse my ignorance of annotations), is it
feasible
to introduce an annotation without adding any compile time
dependencies?
Using regular annotations no.
Using backport175 yes :-)
Eugene Kuleshov wrote:
It will work when I'll be done with subtype-based matching. But
using
marker interface is somehow ugly (even so it is probably the best fit
for the Terracotta support).
Java5 annotations could be a nicer option for such purpose, but
then
Terracotta don't support matching on annotations yet. Though it
would be
a good addition too.
regards,
Eugene
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
I'm making an inventory of classes that should be instrumented by
Terracotta if you deploy for them. I have a whole bunch of
classes and
interfaces like PopupSettings and IPageable and IPagingLabelProvider
that are serializable which typically means in the context of Wicket
that they should be available for serializing. Now, just telling
Terracotta to instrument everything that implements Serializable
isn't
gonna work as that is way to course and touches classes outside the
scope of Wicket easily (think of all the hibernate classes etc you
might use).
I'd like to propose introducing an interface like 'Clusterable' that
simply extends Serializable and replacing all the classes in Wicket
that implement Serializable to implement that instead. Not only
would
that communicate our intend a little bit better, but it would also
mean that we could just tell the Terracotta config file to
instrument
all implementations of that interface and be done with it. Thats
easier to get to a good configuration for Terracotta now *and* if we
keep on playing by those rules for the Wicket projects, we can
refactor what we want without ever having to be worried about
breaking
a Terracotta configuration (not to mention having to maintain
several
versions of that configuration).
Any grave objections to this? Eugene, will that work?
Regards,
Eelco
_______________________________________________
tc-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
_______________________________________________
tc-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
Jonas Bonér
http://jonasboner.com
