We we should not use Optional and instead of duplicate the API in our framework, whereas the JDK already provides it?
For me that makes no sense... Looking forward to your thoughts. J Anatole 2017-09-28 22:06 GMT+02:00 Oliver B. Fischer <[email protected]>: > Hi, did anyone have a look at this proposal? > > > Am 23.09.17 um 02:21 schrieb Oliver B. Fischer: > > Philipp and I meet today at BEDCON and discussed the pros and cons. We >> think we should not use Optional as a possible return type but we >> could/should a similar functionality. >> >> What do you think about this example code? >> >> Configuration c = ConfigurationProvider.getConfiguration(); >> >> String value1 = c.key("K1").get(); >> String value2 = c.key("K2").getOrThrow(() -> new RuntimeException()); >> String value3 = c.key("K3").getOrElse(() -> "DEFAULT") >> String value4 = c.key("K4").map(v -> v).get() >> >> WDYT? >> >> Oliver >> >> Am 21.09.17 um 13:52 schrieb John D. Ament: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> I was wondering, would it make sense for Tamaya to handle within its core >>> usage of Optional? Its required by MP, however the code looks a bit >>> disjointed in how it works. The method MicroprofileConfig.getOptional >>> Value >>> looks elegant, but it seems there's no handling of the optional values >>> properly in the producer method. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >> > -- > N Oliver B. Fischer > A Schönhauser Allee 64, 10437 Berlin, Deutschland/Germany > P +49 30 44793251 > M +49 178 7903538 > E [email protected] > S oliver.b.fischer > J [email protected] > X http://xing.to/obf > > -- *Anatole Tresch* PPMC Member Apache Tamaya JCP Star Spec Lead *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1* *maketechsimple.wordpress.com <http://maketechsimple.wordpress.com/> * *Twitter: @atsticks, @tamayaconf* *Speaking at:* [image: JSD_Speaker_2017][image: J-Con 2017 logo][image: JVM Con]
