I heard it the first time, no need to draw guns :) I just added another viewpoint as I happened to also ponder Iterable vs dedicated API on another pull request.
> On 6 mars 2015, at 11:01, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > I was already aware of that blog, and while he makes some interesting > observations, I strongly disagree on it being a general rule. Like > many of the people commenting on the blog post, and the author himself > admits the title was too broad ;-) > > First of, it's an SPI that we consume ourselves. We *know* that all we > need is to iterate, and the "for each" idiom is all we need. > Exposing a List in this case was an error, as it's a leaky > abstraction: there is no ordering requirement, and in fact I was > hoping to replace the implementation with a Set but I couldn't do that > as we committed to a contract which exposes a List. > > We all know the rules of encapsulation: expose the least possible, but > no less... obviously the blog poster has a point in his case as he was > bitten by the "no less" problem. > I guess we all like encapsulation of classes, or we could as well move > back to public static fields rather than accessors. And you all return > "Set", and not "HashSet" right? Even though I often prefer to keep the > private field to use the type of the concrete collection, as > *privately* it may be useful (that's a case by case call). > > You expose the highest abstraction which satisfies the need, aiming at > a good balance of practicality for both the implementor of the > contract and the consumer. > > There also is a performance aspect. By returning List or Set, decency > rules require me to wrap them in their immutable counterparts, or make > defensive copies. > But then when the collections' whole point is to actually mutate, > you'd need to do such a wrap (or such a copy) on a per-invocation of > the read.. even if you don't agree on it being a good enough > performance reason, it adds on the readability of the code. > Often that's not a big deal, still why do I need to pay for any cost > if its reason to be is completely moot. > > Many of our internal contracts should be Iterable, especially if it's > only about iterating _some collection_. > > It's different of course if you expose it as a domain model to a user > API: in that case you don't really know what the use case's practical > needs are going to need, and then like the blog states being able to > run "size()" is often too compelling. > > > >> On 6 March 2015 at 08:12, Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org> wrote: >> We had that debate in one of the PR. We ended up not returning it for other >> reasons. >> A small additional stone to the discussion is here >> http://alexruiz.developerblogs.com/?p=2519 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
