That's because the transport layer in general can transport any kind of Object. This generalization is being taken advantage by our AMQP implementation. It allows our transport layer to work with AMQP command packets which do NOT extend from the DataStructure class.
What might be useful is if we use generics in the Transport interface so that it can become more type safe without loosing the current flexibility. On 3/31/07, Allesmallachen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I was wondering why you don't use the Command and the DataStructure interfaces directly in the method signatures of the parts of ActiveMQ that are concerend with sending and receiving commands and marshalling data. All signatures use the generic Object type. In the implementations that are available, those objects get cast into Commands or Datastructres anyway. So why not making this explicit in the interface definitions as well? best regards, Christian -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Command-and-DataStructure-tf3497340s2354.html#a9768534 Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
