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/>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.