Command and DataStructure

[Allesmallachen <Sp...@web.de>]

Hi,
I was wondering why you don't use the Command and the DataStructure
interfaces directly in the method signatures of the parts of ActiveMQ that
are concerend with sending and receiving commands and marshalling data. All
signatures use the generic Object type. In the implementations that are
available, those objects get cast into Commands or Datastructres anyway. So
why not making this explicit in the interface definitions as well?

best regards,
Christian
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Command-and-DataStructure-tf3497340s2354.html#a9768534
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Command and DataStructure

[Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>]

That's because the transport layer in general can transport any kind
of Object.  This generalization is being taken advantage by our AMQP
implementation.  It allows our transport layer to work with AMQP
command packets which do NOT extend from the DataStructure class.

What might be useful is if we use generics in the Transport interface
so that it can become more type safe without loosing the current
flexibility.

On 3/31/07, Allesmallachen <Sp...@web.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I was wondering why you don't use the Command and the DataStructure
> interfaces directly in the method signatures of the parts of ActiveMQ that
> are concerend with sending and receiving commands and marshalling data. All
> signatures use the generic Object type. In the implementations that are
> available, those objects get cast into Commands or Datastructres anyway. So
> why not making this explicit in the interface definitions as well?
>
> best regards,
> Christian
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Command-and-DataStructure-tf3497340s2354.html#a9768534
> Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com