Hi Harsha,
Harsha Godugu wrote:
> Jeanfrancois Arcand wrote:
>> Hi Alexey,
>>
>> Oleksiy Stashok wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> IMHO this bug should be closed.
>>> Don't think we really need this extension to apply to our
>>> AttributeHolder implementation.
>>> As attributes are used both inside Grizzly framework and outside, by
>>> developers, it's difficult to make any assumptions about possible
>>> parameter types.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> I agree :-)
>>
>> -- Jeanfrancoid
> I disagree :-(
>
> Reason.. think about a generic use-case of Collections (since you are
> using a Map..) in the places where we /Grizzly is using Keys .. for
> example, in SlectorHandler, Collector,
Collector :-)
Context... What would be the
> BEST to describe an attribute in a collection, in the context of
> grizzly's Context, SelectorHandler, Controller? does it really a String
> type? Actually, the way Grizzly using the *term* attribute is not even
> appropriate. Why? attribute is something that describes a specific
> distinguishable feature of the particular object (or instance). The way
> grizzly uses here is, to store SOME objects and their references, in
> case it needs at various scopes. This forces users to "create" their
> own strings?keys (to accommodate in) to retrieve the references.
Right. Might not be perfect, but a lot of API use that approach:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/javax/net/ssl/SSLSession.html
http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/api/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html
>
> Take the case of grizzly's Context which ALSO acts as an AttributeHolder.
> If I read the API for the latest Context.java... what does it say -
> "Used to share objects b/w ProtocolFilter"
> Now, if I want to use this place-holder to STORE my objects , what's the
> best way to identify my collection of Objects in a Grizzly's Context.
> Does it really a String?
Implementation wise, the code is less complex when String is used. I
think you should send a patch with your changes so we can see exactly
the use case.
>
> Since we can not go back, now we ought to stick to the one in place.
> Thats where we are.
I don't understand what you means above :-)
Thanks
-- Jeanfrancois
>
> -hg
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> WBR,
>>> Alexey.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> [Issue 53] AttributeHolder needs maps with parameterized types <T>
>>> From:
>>> jfarcand_at_dev.java.net
>>> Date:
>>> Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:28:23 +0000
>>> To:
>>> issues_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>>
>>> To:
>>> issues_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>>
>>>
>>> https://grizzly.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=53
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> User jfarcand changed the following:
>>>
>>> What |Old value |New value
>>> ================================================================================
>>>
>>> Priority|P1 |P3
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------- Additional comments from jfarcand_at_dev.java.net Thu Feb 14
>>> 22:28:23 +0000 2008 -------
>>> Not a p1 IMO
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: issues-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_grizzly.dev.java.net
>>
>