It seems OK to me.
Ralph
> On Jun 3, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> I like the type erasure allowing for easier BC idea for sure.
>
> On 3 June 2017 at 14:08, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Ralph Goers
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From a backward compatibility point
I like the type erasure allowing for easier BC idea for sure.
On 3 June 2017 at 14:08, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Ralph Goers
> wrote:
>
> > From a backward compatibility point of view changing that would be a
> > problem. Also, StructuredDataMessage extends MapMessag
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> From a backward compatibility point of view changing that would be a
> problem. Also, StructuredDataMessage extends MapMessage and expects a
> String. That said, there must be a way to make it generic but have the
> default be a String. For ex
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> From a backward compatibility point of view changing that would be a
> problem. Also, StructuredDataMessage extends MapMessage and expects a
> String. That said, there must be a way to make it generic but have the
> default be a String. For ex
