I agree on not extending interfaces. Some of the other context map interfaces are standalone, and I don't see why TCM2 had to extend anything.
On 16 January 2017 at 15:16, Apache <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I presume it was named ThreadContextMap3 so there could be a > ThreadContextMap4 since 3 extends 2 and 2 extends the first one. Frankly, > I dislike this practice very, very much. Instead, each interface should be > named as you suggest and NOT extend the prior interface. Instead, the > implementation should declare that it implements each of these. > > Ralph > > On Jan 16, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Can we come up with a better name before we release this and get stuck > with such a terrible interface name? All it adds is a removeAll(Iterable) > method, so perhaps something like CleanableThreadContextMap or > RemovableThreadContextMap. > > -- > Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> > > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
