Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> +1 on this.
> But for the "normal" FilesystemStore it doesn't make
> any sense. Should we split the packages?
> store/persistent
> store/memory
>
> or something else?
Something else.
What we are talking about here is the difference between Persistent
and Transient Storage.
The Cache implementation is a hybrid (i.e. uses both semantics).
Therefore both memory and cache would hold to the minimum Store
interface. If there is anything to be kept persistently, you would
extend the Store interface to have a new interface that had that
guarantee as part of the contract.
As regards the size() method, we can specify that it will return -1
if the underlying store does not support that method.
I think that is the best way in the long run--who knows we may want
to support it in the future. Just because we don't need it now, doesn't
mean we should do development acrobatics to not support it.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
