For chain and navigation patterns it is really cool. But not for other stuff.
LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 20:45, Reinhard Sandtner > <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 i’m not a fan of Optional > > lg > reini > > >> Am 06.01.2015 um 20:22 schrieb Gerhard Petracek > <[email protected]>: >> >> +1 >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> >> >> 2015-01-06 20:19 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg <[email protected]>: >> >>> +1. Having the returned value is indeed an overkill for > PropertySources. >>> >>> LieGrue, >>> strub >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 19:56, Anatole Tresch > <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> BTW from my exoerience in implementing and specially combining > the >>>> PropertySources within the ConfigurationContext, I would say SPI > handling >>>> would be easier, if we would not return optional for the sources. > On >>>> Configuration I like the idea much more, but on SPI side, I think >>> Optional >>>> is an overkill. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Anatole >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Anatole Tresch* >>>> Java Engineer & Architect, JSR Spec Lead >>>> Glärnischweg 10 >>>> CH - 8620 Wetzikon >>>> >>>> *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1* >>>> *Twitter: @atsticks* >>>> *Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/ >>>> <http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/>* >>>> >>>> *Google: atsticksMobile +41-76 344 62 79* >>>> >>> >
