Skip to main content

[json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?

  • From: Tatu Saloranta < >
  • To:
  • Subject: [json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?
  • Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:38:25 -0700

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM,  
< >
 wrote:
> i think JsonFeature is not required, we should change
> JsonConfiguration's design, such as:
>
> public class JsonConfiguration {
>     public Object get(String name)
>     public Object put(String name, Object value)
> }

That is bit of cop out, adding anything to mean anything. While
certainly extensible, I think it leads to non-standard being the
common case, and can easily lead to errors when there is no type
support from things like IDEs. The whole idea of using an interface is
that this way one can limit things that can possibly used for
configuration, without preventing extensibility.

Use of String and Object in these cases is code smell, suggesting case
of under-engineering.

-+ Tatu +-


[json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?

szujobs 10/29/2012

[json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?

Tatu Saloranta 10/29/2012

[json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?

wenshao 10/29/2012

[json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?

Tatu Saloranta 10/29/2012

[json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?

Jitendra Kotamraju 10/29/2012

[json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?

Jörn Horstmann 10/29/2012

[json-processing-spec users] Re: JsonFeature interface - is it meant as a marker or constant?

Jitendra Kotamraju 10/29/2012
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close