+1 On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi guys, > > when the functional API has been outline, the interfaces were put into > infinispan-commons to make it possible to share these between remote > clients and embedded use case. However, it seems that reusing this as-is > impossible or at least impractical as we cannot send the lambdas in a > language neutral way. In the future, we may implement a way to share > functions between client and a server but that will most likely result > in an interface accepting something else than Function<ReadWriteEntry, > R>. Also, it's rather weird to have two EntryVersion interfaces. > > Therefore I suggest moving org.infinispan.commons.api.functional to > infinispan-core, package org.infinispan.api.functional > > You might say that the server-side code would use the interfaces, but > once it's running on server, it should depend on core (or core-api) - > commons is what is shared with the client, and if the client will in > future register a new function on the server, the user code should > depend on core-api as well (client-hotrod itself does not have to). > > If you wonder what led me to this is that I've tried to add > SerializableFunction overloads to the FunctionalMap and found out that > SerializableFunction et all are only in infinispan-core (for good). > > Please let me know if you have objections/if there something I have missed. > > Radim > > -- > Radim Vansa <rva...@redhat.com> > JBoss Performance Team > > _______________________________________________ > infinispan-dev mailing list > infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev > -- Vittorio Rigamonti Senior Software Engineer Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> Milan, Italy vriga...@redhat.com irc: rigazilla <https://red.ht/sig>
_______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
