Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
Re: Remove "generic" multiply/divide operations from Quantity
- From: Werner Keil <
>
- To:
- Subject: Re: Remove "generic" multiply/divide operations from Quantity
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 14:33:28 +0200
Martin/Jean-Marie/all,
Do you want this now, too?;-)
I did not hear from Eclipse, but unless they say "do it like 0.6 get rid of
all operations", not sure if they'd still fancy using JSR 363 then?;-O
Am 18.10.2014 14:09 schrieb "Otávio Gonçalves de Santana" <
>:
>
Thank you Leonardo, to explain better.
>
Considering we need to take care the semantic, I agree with Leonardo to
>
remove and wait to Generic the maturity to go back again.
>
>
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Leonardo Lima
>
<
>
>
wrote:
>
>
> Hello, all!
>
>
>
> It seems that the best way out is to leave the operations that change
>
> unit (inverse, multiply, divide) out of scope and wait until there's better
>
> support for this in the Java APIs. This because once we add a method, we
>
> (almost) can't remove it from the API; but we can always add new ones.
>
>
>
> I understand that the <?> method is the best one if we want to keep the
>
> operations in the API, as it's the most explicit about what's happening: I
>
> don't know what's coming out from the method call.
>
>
>
> About size and Java ME, the problem arises when vendors start supporting
>
> and say they already include this JSR in their Java stack. Used as a
>
> library, we can (and do) strip and obfuscate methods and classes to reduce
>
> size (and protect IP). But that won't be the case for a vendor that
>
> supports the JSR, as they should support the spec as a whole. Given this, I
>
> support the "optionality" of Quantities, because it makes no sense for a
>
> temperature sensor vendor to support speed and unrelated units. They
>
> declare what Quantities they support and/or support it via proprietary API
>
> (like the BMI interface Werner used as an example).
>
>
>
> Lastly I don't agree that just because the JDK currently has "improper
>
> code" we're allowed to do the same. I think we should consult the OpenJDK
>
> and Java ME people if we ever want this to become part of the respective
>
> platforms (even when this is not stated in the JSR proposal).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Leonardo.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana <
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Martin.
>
>> Is there any place in the new JavaSE API that does something like you
>
>> propose to do?
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <
>
>>
>
>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> Otavio, all the JDK examples you gave below are *safe*, because:
>
>>>
>
>>> - In an empty list/set/map, the type of elements (Integer, String,
>
>>> etc.) become irrelevant.
>
>>> - In asList, the relationship between input and output types is
>
>>> correctly expressed. The method signature:
>
>>>
>
>>> <T> List<T> asList(T... a)
>
>>>
>
>>> said: "*the type of elements in the list is the same than the type of
>
>>> the given elements*", which is correct.
>
>>>
>
>>> By contract, UNITSOFMEASUREMENT-62 is *unsafe*. The following method
>
>>> signature:
>
>>>
>
>>> <T extends Quantity<T>,R extends Quantity<R>> Quantity<R>
>
>>> multiply(Quantity<T> that)
>
>>>
>
>>> said: "*there is no relationship between the type of this instance Q,
>
>>> the input type T and the output type R*" (otherwise, please show me
>
>>> where the relationship is expressed). The fact that this signature
>
>>> declares
>
>>> no relationship is why the compiler accepts anything like "mass =
>
>>> length.multiply(time)". This method signature is wrong - the reality
>
>>> is not an absence of relationship. The reality is a relationship that we
>
>>> can not express in Java.
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Martin
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> Le 17/10/14 08:44, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana a écrit :
>
>>>
>
>>> About the question of Martin, Yes we can do and there are in in SE api
>
>>> such java.util.Collections
>
>>> <http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/Collections.html>,
>
>>> java.util.Arrays
>
>>> <http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/Arrays.html>, etc.
>
>>>
>
>>> List<Integer> intergers = Collections.emptyList();
>
>>> List<String> strings = Collections.emptyList();
>
>>>
>
>>> java.util.Set<Integer> intergersSet = Collections.emptySet();
>
>>> java.util.Set<String> stringsSet = Collections.emptySet();
>
>>>
>
>>> java.util.Map<String, Integer> map = Collections.emptyMap();
>
>>> java.util.Map<String, String> map2 = Collections.emptyMap();
>
>>>
>
>>> List<Long> longs = java.util.Arrays.asList(1L, 2L, 3L);
>
>>> List<Integer> ints = java.util.Arrays.asList(1, 2, 4);
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> I can do something like this and still the Java language :)
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> --
>
>> Otávio Gonçalves de Santana
>
>>
>
>> blog: http://otaviosantana.blogspot.com.br/
>
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
>
>> site: *http://about.me/otaviojava <http://about.me/otaviojava>*
>
>> 55 (11) 98255-3513
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
>
Otávio Gonçalves de Santana
>
>
blog: http://otaviosantana.blogspot.com.br/
>
twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava
>
site: *http://about.me/otaviojava <http://about.me/otaviojava>*
>
55 (11) 98255-3513
>
>