On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Scott Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which aspect of the generic API are you most interested in? The builder,
> getters, or setters?
Most people that use Specific records do so for compile time type safety,
> so adding 'set("foo", fooval)' is not desired for those users. On the
> other hand it is certainly possible to add it.
I am interested in getters and setters at first.
For now, any code that intends to work with both generic and specific
record must use the IndexedRecord (and implement the accessors Doug
It would be useful in some cases to be able to consider specific records as
generic records too.
Now that you mention it too, I realize I also needed to use specific record
builders as generic record builders and could not, so that would be useful
If you think it's a meaningful addition, I'm happy to make the change.
> The code generated by the specific code generation utility uses templates,
> one can add a template that extends what is produced to include generic API
> On 4/15/13 11:23 AM, "Christophe Taton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a reason for specific records to not implement the generic API?
> I didn't find any obvious technical reason, but maybe I missed something.