Re: Embed E in Java
Kevin Reid <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.e.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Jan 12, 2010, at 17:08, Mark Miller wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Oct 21, 2009, at 13:25, Mark Miller wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Kevin Reid <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> MarkM: Is there a non-historical reason NestedException/ >>>> NestedThrowable/etc exist instead of using the Java 1.4 >>>> Throwable.getCause() mechanism? >>> >>> Mostly history. The NestedException,.. mechanism predates Java 1.4. >>> Since it worked, I have never examined the new getCause() API. I do >>> not know whether or not it would be safe to use instead. >> >> I believe I understand it sufficiently well to say that it is safe >> and >> appropriate to use instead. I propose to change E-on-Java to replace >> the Nested* mechanisms (backwards compatibly, i.e. the .leaf() sugar >> and so on will still exist) with causes. >> >> * What is the minimum Java version E-on-Java is intended to require? >> >> > 1.4. Yes, I realize that contradicts my paragraph quoted above. I > have no > objections to moving E-on-Java's dependencies forward to 1.5. Does > anyone > else see any reasons to stay with 1.4 for now? Hold on. Where did 1.5 come in, and what do you mean by "moving E-on- Java's dependencies"? I'm only proposing to use 1.4 features, not 1.5. I don't see any contradiction in what you have said so far. > Btw, one big potential benefit of moving towards 1.5 is that we > could start > making parts of E-on-Java be Joe-E safe. Ultimately, except for a > small > powerbox, it might be good for E-on-Java to become E-on-Joe-E. > Unfortunately, for this to happen, we'd need to start to use Java's > generics > (parameterized typed) within the E implementation, at an enormous > cost in > readability and reviewability. I do not yet understand how practical > it is > to use Joe-E while avoiding generics. Why do you consider the generics an enormous cost? Additional verbosity, or erasure-related issues, or what? -- Kevin Reid <http://switchb.org/kpreid/>