incubator-adffaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Arjuna Wijeyekoon" <arj...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Date Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:55:05 GMT
ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make ValueMap
public.

I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,

but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
commons-collections has a BidiMap)
can I call this
BidiHashMap
?


On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > dependency eternally  - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> > past).  So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > the return type of any public API.
>
> good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
>
> > We might consider introducing:
> >
> >   org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> >   {
> >      Object getKey(Object value)
> >      BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> >      Object removeValue(Object value)
> >   }
> >
> > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > implements our BidiMap.  This eliminates the
> > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > dependency.
> >
> > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > one feature.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <arjuna@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > >
> > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > >
> > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> > >
> > > --arjuna
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess both are useful;  but what is the underlying storage?
> > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > > ReverseHashMap.  (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > >
> > > > -- Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <arjuna@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > >
> > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value
to
> > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > >
> > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > > implemented
> > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > ??????
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > V value;
> > > > > K key = map.getKey(value);    // option 1
> > > > > or
> > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap();     //  option 2
> > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > ???
> > > > >
> > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > >
> > > > > --arjuna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>

Mime
View raw message