Re: [infinispan-dev] Fwd: [jgroups-dev] Incompatible change in 3.1.0

On 29 Nov 2011, at 10:43, Tristan Tarrant wrote: > On 11/29/2011 11:28 AM, Bela Ban wrote: >> Yes, I thought about this too, but then trashed the idea because enums >> take up too much memory. Since an enum is a class, and an enum instance >> is an instance (although a singleton / classloader instance), we have > Why, you would just use the Enum when setting and getting, but otherwise > just store your internal representation. Yes thats what I meant. This way the internal representation can change from version to version if needed, and still shield users from API change. Plus enums from an API standpoint is cleaner/nicer, and good enough a reason to do so.