But for some of those classes, it doesn't really seem appropriate to have type parameters like <K, V> tied into their implementation.
Which classes are you referring to? I agree that the number of warnngs generated due to genericised interfaces may be a bit much.
The state transfer classes, notification classes, marshaling, cache loaders, interceptors which use Fqn and Node need some sort of parameters... Or perhaps maybe wildcards or something.
So, for example, you have a CacheStoreInterceptor:
public class CacheLoaderInterceptor extends BaseCacheLoaderInterceptor implements CacheStoreInterceptorMBean
parameterized, needs to be something like:
public class CacheLoaderInterceptor<K, V, F> extends BaseCacheLoaderInterceptor<K, V, F> implements CacheStoreInterceptorMBean
Where K and V are the Node key and value, and you have to include the Fqn type as well.
Actually, I'm not really any sort of generics expert. There might be some way to use wildcards or something to hide all this.
Yeah I agree, should be able to reduce those warnings. JBCACHE-1074