Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: Should JSR-363 API provide the SI class?
- From: Martin Desruisseaux <
>
- To:
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: Should JSR-363 API provide the SI class?
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 12:29:02 +0900
- Organization: Geomatys
Le 14/12/14 01:37, Werner Keil a écrit :
>
Exposing SI in the API was a tempting thought, but a significant
>
mix-up between API and RI in JSR 275 did us no good as you remember;-)
One problem with JSR-275, in my opinion, was that it exposed too much
implementation details. But SI constants for units defined by BIPM is
not an implementation details.
>
We discussed moving abstract base classes, especially
>
AbstractSystemOfUnits into the API (...snip...),
>
see https://java.net/jira/browse/UNITSOFMEASUREMENT-42
I agree with the comments posted in the JIRA task: AbstractSystemOfUnits
should stay on the implementation side. There is no guarantees that an
other implementation would not use an other abstract base class. But
this is unrelated to the SI discussion - there is no need for those
classes for providing SI constants.
>
If we wanted to provide any implementation class as "default" in the
>
API, we would have to reopen this ticket first.
Not necessarily - using ServiceLoader in the static class initializer, a
SI class would not need to know the actual implementation classes.
Martin