Re: [infinispan-dev] Fwd: [jgroups-dev] Incompatible change in 3.1.0
If you're changing this, why not change it to an Enum to guard it from future changes?
API-wise, flags are an Enum and impl-wise, the Enum can be used to generate any type of
code for the wire.
E.g.,
enum Flags {
OOB((byte) 1), DONT_BUNDLE((byte) 2), …
public Flags(byte code) {
// …
}
}
can then change to
enum Flags {
OOB((short) 1), DONT_BUNDLE((short) 2), …
public Flags(short code) {
// …
}
}
or even
enum Flags {
OOB("OOB"), DONT_BUNDLE("Blah"), …
public Flags(String code) {
// …
}
}
without ever breaking API. :) May as well future-proof it once and for all?
- Manik
On 28 Nov 2011, at 16:38, Bela Ban wrote:
FYI
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [jgroups-dev] Incompatible change in 3.1.0
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:36:49 +0100
From: Bela Ban <belaban(a)yahoo.com>
To: jg-users <javagroups-users(a)lists.sourceforge.net>, jg-dev
<javagroups-development(a)lists.sourceforge.net>
I'm working on an issue that requires a change in Message and
RequestOptions: I want to change the 'flags' field from a byte to a
short. I'd changethe follwoing methods and fields:
- Message.OOB, DONT_BUNDLE, NO_FC, SCOPED, NO_RELIABILITY,
NO_TOTAL_ORDER, NO_RELAY would become a short from a byte
- void Message.setFlag(byte flag) --> void Message.setFlag(short flag);
- void Message.clearFlag(byte flag) --> void Message.clearFlag(short flag)
- boolean Message.isFlagSet(byte flag) --> boolean
Message.isFlagSet(short flag)
A typical use case such as:
Message msg=new Message(...);
msg.setFlag(Message.OOB);
would *not* require any change at all.
However, if you have:
byte flags=Message.OOB;
msg.setFlag(flags);
This wouldn't work as 'flags' would have to be a short (or downcast to a
byte).
Also, in RequestOptions, the 'flags' field would have to be changed to a
short (from a byte). RequestOptions.setFlags()/getFlags()/clearFlags()
would be affected. Again, typical code like this:
RequestOptions opts=new RequestOptions(ResponseMode.GET_ALL, 5000,
false).setFlags(Message.OOB)
would not have to be changed at all.
What do people think ? I know this is an API change, although a minor
one, and I wanted to see if anyone's code would break.
I checked Infinispan (master) and this doesn't cause any code breakage.
[1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1250
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org