> From: Gerhard Froehlich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >As regards the size() method, we can specify that it will return -1
> >if the underlying store does not support that method.
Would prefer if it returned 0. Whatever code uses the store, I can not
think of any reason why it would want to
Berin,
>From: Berin Loritsch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
>
>> +1 on this.
>> But for the "normal" FilesystemStore it doesn't make
>> any sense. Should we split the packages?
>> store/persistent
>> store/memory
>>
>> or something else?
>
>
>Something else.
:)
>What we
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
>
>> +1 on this.
>> But for the "normal" FilesystemStore it doesn't make
>> any sense. Should we split the packages?
>> store/persistent
>> store/memory
Just in case you didn't catch it, +1 from me as well.
>>
>> or something else?
>
>
>
>
Gerhard Froehlich wrote:
> +1 on this.
> But for the "normal" FilesystemStore it doesn't make
> any sense. Should we split the packages?
> store/persistent
> store/memory
>
> or something else?
Something else.
What we are talking about here is the difference between Persistent
and Transient S
quot;
>-Original Message-
>From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 4:58 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [VOTE] Add Store.size() method
>
>
>Let's repeat this with more appropriate subject. My vote is +1: Store
>essen
Let's repeat this with more appropriate subject. My vote is +1: Store
essentially is Collection, and there no collections in Java without
size.
Vadim
> From: Vadim Gritsenko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> People,
>
> What's your opinion on adding size() method to the Store interface?
> Current
