Not a stupid concern in my book. However there is a synchronization mechanism in place. We are taking part in it right now. Whether the new matrix implements both SymmetricMatrix and BandedMatrix or is a new tagging interface (SymmetricBanded) would determined in the list, after a bit of back and forth.
2011/7/2 Sébastien Brisard <sebastien.bris...@m4x.org> > Marker interface seems to be a very elegant solution. I am just wondering > about a potential issue. Let us assume we defined two interfaces, say > SymmetricMatrix, and BandedMatrix. User A writes a matrix class which > implements both interfaces. Meanwhile, user B implements an algorithm which > requires a symmetric, banded matrix. Presummably, user B will define a new > marker interface, which extends both SymmetricMatrix and BandedMatrix. So we > have on the one hand > > class UserAMatrix implements SymmetricMatrix, BandedMatrix; > > and > > UserBAlgorithm.operate(**BandedSymmetricMatrix). > > One day, user A hears of the work of user B. The matrix he has implemented > has just the required features (symmetric *and* banded). But it does not > implement BandedSymmetricMatrix, so he cannot apply UserBAlgorithm.operate > to an instance of UserAMatrix. There is always the possibility of creating a > new class which extends UserAMatrix and implements BandedSymmetricMatrix, > but that would obfuscate the hierarchy tree. Is this a problem? Is that a > stupid remark? > > Sebastien > > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
