Berin, >From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >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. Good idea! I cannot think today. I was on a party with colleagues yesterday and I'm braindead in the moment. Your proposal would be clean solution and I'm +1 with this! Gerhard --------------------------------- Me, Ambivalent? Well, yes and no. --------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
