I just bumped into one issue (actually two issues) after this:
I - First HAWT-JMS is not working with trunk because the API is changed here. I
could change the API but now I have an issue that we can't commit the change
since there is no commit for this yet.
II - Using this Factory on the
Just a heads up, I've committed this to trunk. Please let me know if it
causes any problems.
--Rafael
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Rafael Schloming r...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I've put together a patch that makes the proton-j factory usage a bit
simpler and more consistent.
I forgot to mention, but another part of the reasoning here is that Java 8
is (finally!!!) allowing static methods in interfaces, so the natural
pattern for this sort of thing would just be Interface.create(...), and
while we won't be able to use that for a while, the
Interface.Factory.create(...)
The only issue is that all the users using Proton-j would have to be at least
Java8.
For instance, I can have maybe my users using Java8 on the server, but they
won't migrate all their clients.
On Apr 30, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Rafael Schloming r...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
I forgot to mention, but
Right, I wasn't suggesting the proton codebase use Java 8 anytime soon (I
would think not until Java 7 is EOLed), just that if a Java 8 codebase uses
proton-j then the idioms will be a little bit closer to each other.
--Rafael
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Clebert Suconic
Ah.. I see.
I looked at the patch and I liked it.
One thing I don't like on the current codebase is the implementations as inner
classes on Interfaces.. (e.g. WriteableBuffer)... I would suggest making it a
separate class.
but on this case it makes a lot of sense I looked at the
Hi Everyone,
I've put together a patch that makes the proton-j factory usage a bit
simpler and more consistent. You can review it here if you like:
- https://reviews.apache.org/r/20854/
The main point of the patch is to make all the factories consistently
follow this pattern:
