Also fine with renaming. Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 17, 2017, at 9:07, Remko Popma <remko.po...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think it was originally standalone and changed to the current extending > interface after feedback on the mailing list. > > I'm fine with standalone interfaces and having the implementation implement > multiple interfaces. > > Remko > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 17, 2017, at 6:25, Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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>
