Skip to main content

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

  • From: Werner Keil < >
  • To: " " < >
  • Subject: Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship
  • Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 17:34:30 +0100

As long as the operations are all on Quantity<Q> or Quantity<?> that is
fine.
That's exactly why a Factory returning Q not Quantity<Q> makes no sense.
As the operations internally (this is probably one of the few cases, where
future Java plans like reified types could "rescue" that type at runtime[?])
always deal with a class like DoubleQuantity<Q> not a concrete class. The
few cases where we might have concrete types are a sort of "experimental"
SI library: https://github.com/unitsofmeasurement/uom-lib/tree/master/si
With its own domain "si.uom".

Check it out, while it uses the RI for now, it might also exist in an SE
variation, where Dynamic Proxies would work, too.

 Werner

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <
>
 wrote:

> Le 02/11/14 01:19, Werner Keil a écrit :
> > The most important argument on the ME side is space.
> > declaring dozens or hundreds of concrete classes (even if they got
> > significant math from a base class like current BaseQuantity) is a
> > nightmare there.
> >
> > People would likely end up with "Wildcard" types given the current
> > approach of Quantity<?> for unknown types would no longer exist
>
> No. Mass is assignable to Quantity<Mass>. No one is forced to use Mass.
>
>     Martin
>
>

Attachment: 347.gif
Description: GIF image



Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

(continued)

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Jean-Marie Dautelle 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Jean-Marie Dautelle 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Werner Keil 11/01/2014

Re: On Quantity - Measurement relationship

Martin Desruisseaux 11/01/2014
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close