Yeah, I think our difference of opinion comes down to differing visions of the goal here. Mine is strictly so others can create frameworks/tools like ehcache as first class citizens like ours. So something like Person in an app isn't really the problem I'm trying to solve yet. I still want to isolate the rest of the world from identity at that level.
On May 20, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Geert Bevin wrote: > Yes we do, but these are reusable library types, creating interfaces is quite > logical. Having a class named Person with just contact details and having to > write an interface just to be able to store that in a queue is excessing imho. > > On 20 May 2010, at 16:29, Steve Harris wrote: > >> Isn't this what we do to build the terracotta products? >> >> On May 20, 2010, at 5:19 AM, Geert Bevin wrote: >> >>>>> * require app devs to bundle their custom types in a dedicated jar also >>>>> and to only reference them through interfaces, allow us to use the same >>>>> approach as the one we're currently using >>>> >>>> I like one. It allows someone to leverage identity in there framework but >>>> keeps it protected from leaking out to the user of the framework >>> >>> I'm wondering how useful this is really going to be, are developers really >>> going to want to write interfaces for all the types they use within >>> express? Are they going to be able to hand over the lifecycle management >>> (ie. not use DI etc). Those seem like pretty counter-intuitive restrictions >>> to me that I personally wouldn't be happy about if they would be imposed on >>> me. > > -- > Geert Bevin > Terracotta - http://www.terracotta.org > > _______________________________________________ > tc-dev mailing list > tc-dev@lists.terracotta.org > http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev _______________________________________________ tc-dev mailing list tc-dev@lists.terracotta.org http://lists.terracotta.org/mailman/listinfo/tc-dev
