CacheConfiguration chaining

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CacheConfiguration chaining

dsetrakyan
Igniters,

I just noticed that we have added chaining for CacheConfiguration, however,
it seems that we did not propagate the generics.

CacheConfigruration is declared with <K, V>, but the returned
CacheConfiguration instance from any of the setter methods looses Generics
information.

Was this done on purpose or by mistake?

D.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CacheConfiguration chaining

Nikolay Tikhonov
For arguments is not required to use specific type now and if we change
setters a compatibility on compilation level with previous versions might
be broken in methods *setEvictionFilter(..), setCacheStoreFactory(..) and
setInterceptor(..)*.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Igniters,
>
> I just noticed that we have added chaining for CacheConfiguration, however,
> it seems that we did not propagate the generics.
>
> CacheConfigruration is declared with <K, V>, but the returned
> CacheConfiguration instance from any of the setter methods looses Generics
> information.
>
> Was this done on purpose or by mistake?
>
> D.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CacheConfiguration chaining

dsetrakyan
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Nikolay Tikhonov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> For arguments is not required to use specific type now and if we change
> setters a compatibility on compilation level with previous versions might
> be broken in methods *setEvictionFilter(..), setCacheStoreFactory(..) and
> setInterceptor(..)*.
>

I don't think adding generics will break compatibility (unlike removing).
Also, in order to proper pass cache configuration into the cache create
methods, we need to fix the generics in chaining.

D.


>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Igniters,
> >
> > I just noticed that we have added chaining for CacheConfiguration,
> however,
> > it seems that we did not propagate the generics.
> >
> > CacheConfigruration is declared with <K, V>, but the returned
> > CacheConfiguration instance from any of the setter methods looses
> Generics
> > information.
> >
> > Was this done on purpose or by mistake?
> >
> > D.
> >
>