Bug 4791 - SPEC - Should we refine the StepExecution<?> parameter reference ?
SPEC - Should we refine the StepExecution<?> parameter reference ?
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: jbatch
Classification: Unclassified
Component: source
1
PC Windows
: P5 enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: cvignola
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-03-13 17:50 UTC by ScottKurz
Modified: 2013-03-20 16:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description ScottKurz 2013-03-13 17:50:30 UTC
Should this signature:

  public List<StepExecution<?>> getStepExecutions(long jobExecutionId) throws NoSuchJobExecutionException, JobSecurityException;

be:
  public List<StepExecution<? extends Serializable>> getStepExecutions
Comment 1 mminella 2013-03-14 18:20:02 UTC
What is the type parameter on this for?  Why would a StepExecution have a type?
Comment 2 cvignola 2013-03-16 21:40:31 UTC
I think we should redefine the user persistent data to be Map<String,? extends Serializable>, which will eliminate the need for the parameterized type in StepExecution.
Comment 3 ScottKurz 2013-03-16 22:06:26 UTC
Please see my comment on Bug 4776 about switching to a Map.   I don't see that this is so valuable to incur this extra work..
Comment 4 cvignola 2013-03-20 16:21:11 UTC
The parameterized types are not helpful.  They're coming off.  In PFD v1.7.