Why not use an enum for all the keys?
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny elecha...@apache.orgwrote:
On 12/5/11 4:32 PM, Christian Schwarz wrote:
As a user, having to create a new instance to hold the key and value might
be seen as heavy, don't you think ?
session.set(new
On 12/7/11 2:58 PM, Chad Beaulac wrote:
Why not use an enum for all the keys?
There is no such thing like a generic Enum type which would be inherited
by all Enums.
Something like session.addAttribute( Enum, Object ) is not possible.
Of course, if we define the addAttribute method as :
Hi,
in MINA 2, session's attributes were stored using the AttributeKey
class, which was concatenating a class name and a name :
private static final AttributeKey PROCESSOR = new AttributeKey(
SimpleIoProcessorPool.class, processor);
...
IoProcessorS processor = (IoProcessorS)
Hi,
I would suggest that we don't use the AttributeKey class at all, and
instead, define each internal MINA Attribute by prefixing them with '__'.
For instance, the SslContext would use the '__SslContext' key. The rational
is that there is no reaon to use complex key, even if we have some
On 12/5/11 3:32 PM, Christian Schwarz wrote:
Hi,
I would suggest that we don't use the AttributeKey class at all, and
instead, define each internal MINA Attribute by prefixing them with '__'.
For instance, the SslContext would use the '__SslContext' key. The rational
is that there is no reaon
What about mixing both mode ? A String, Value mode for simple usage, and
a typesafe mode, as you suggested (that means we will have two different
kind of map to store both elements).
I think two modes is one mode to much, it would confuse the user and the
typesafe aspect would be underminded
On 12/5/11 3:52 PM, Christian Schwarz wrote:
What about mixing both mode ? AString, Value mode for simple usage, and
a typesafe mode, as you suggested (that means we will have two different
kind of map to store both elements).
I think two modes is one mode to much, it would confuse the user
As a user, having to create a new instance to hold the key and value might
be seen as heavy, don't you think ?
session.set(new AttributeKeyString(String.**
class,myKey),myAttribute);
is a bit more complex than
session.set( myKey, myAttribute );
Or is it just me ?
It's true for your
