Re: Joe-E

On 04/30/2010 06:33 AM, Rob Meijer wrote:
> On Thu, April 29, 2010 09:52, David Wagner wrote:
>    
>> I suspect the best solution is going to be to do the same thing we
>> did for ImmutableArray and PowerlessArray: write a trusted library in
>> Java, review it very carefully, and include it in the Joe-E library.
>> You'll have to spend some time poring over that code, as it's pretty
>> tricky code.  (You'll notice that it uses reflection to dynamically
>> check that all elements are of the expected type, rather than using
>> the static type system; this is how a PowerlessArray can be used to
>> store both user classes that are declared Powerless as well as
>> library classes that are honorarily Powerless, like String.)
>>
>> Ideally, the goal is that Joe-E would provide a rich enough set of
>> libraries that you never have to run into this problem in application
>> code.  In practice, Joe-E is a research project and does not have as
>> rich a set of libraries as we would like, so you may need to extend
>> our libraries.  If you do, you might consider submitting your code for
>> inclusion in the Joe-E system.
>>      
> This is most likely a completely clueless question (given that I know
> verry little of Joe-E and have limited knowledge of Java generics, so I'l
> be commenting from a C++ generics point of view), but wouldn't it be more
> logical for any 'container' templates to be made honorarily transitively
> Powerless with respect to T ?  That is, a smarter validation rather than a
> richer library ?
>    
This is similar to what I was trying to suggest with the
@Powerless annotation. The answer then was lack of funding /
resources for major development.