Looks good to me. On 20 December 2010 21:12, <jgr...@simulexinc.com> wrote:
> Sim, I think I can summarize the debate thus far. > > Two issues: > 1) Should we use generics within the Javaspaces API? > 2) There are currently corner cases for generics which do not work in a > well-mannered fashion with Javaspace. Should we make changes to Javaspace > to better account for these corner cases? > > The argument for issue #1 is that it allows us to more fully match the > method signature to the specification, while also reducing boilerplate code > for users. > > The principle argument against issue #1 is that by utilizing generics > within the API, users may believe that issue #2 is dealt with. That is, > that by using generics at all, we're implying that in all cases with > generics we will do the least surprising thing. And thus, the argument is > that we should deal with these corner cases first or drop the issue > altogether. > > Issue #2 exists regardless of action on issue #1, and so minimally a > documentation change will have to be made to explain foreseeable problems. > > Other possible solutions to issue #2 include bytecode examination (which is > not a certain solution, but has been mentioned as something to investigate) > or explicitizing the corner cases in some way such that we might gain > knowledge that would otherwise be lacking. Bytecode examination may have > performance penalties, whereas explicitizing the corner cases would result > in a larger API either in terms of method arguments or methods. > > If anyone feels that there's something I've left out, feel free to add to > this summary. > > jamesG > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Sim IJskes - QCG" <s...@qcg.nl> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 8:36am > To: river-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Space/outrigger suggestions > > On 12/20/2010 08:50 AM, Peter wrote: > > I hope we can now refocus and all work together reimplementing > > Outrigger based on what we can agree on, rather than be distracted by > > one thing we can't. > > I'm not sure to which issue we cannot agree on. I'm not even clear on > which are the opposing views. I would like to consolidate the current > consensus in a document for the website, even if it means that we have > to document two opposing views. Generics is not going away as a topic, > so we better document what we have right now. > > Anybody in support for this method? > > Gr. Sim > > > > >
