uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jörn Kottmann <kottm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: generics: additionalParams
Date Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:20:44 GMT
Marshall Schor wrote:
> Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>> The additionalParams Map has a String key and can contains
>> all kinds of Objects, so the correct generification would be
>> Map<String, Object>.
>> In the uima code base I found one invocation where a Properties object
>> was
>> passed as additionalParams. Properties is a Map<Object, Object> which
>> will cause compile errors in user code when they use a Properties
>> object to pass
>> in the additional params.
>> I don't think its common practice to use Properties for additional
>> params.
> If we fix the one found use cited above, are there any other cases where
> instances of Properties are passed as additionalParams in our own code? 
> What do we think is the likelyhood that users will use Properties as
> instances of additional params?
> Our documentation says "See the Javadocs" for info on the additional
> parameters.  The Javadocs say this is a Map ... Valid parameter names
> are defined as constants on the XYZ Interface ... and in that interface,
> these constants are Strings.
> But users might decide to represent these parameters in a properties file.
> Here are some considerations (apologies if I get this wrong - please
> correct):
>  - If we declare as <Object, Object>, then you cannot assign a
> Map<String, Object> to the parameter.
>  - Having the key of the map be an Object is more general, and would
> accommodate Properties.
>  - declaring as <String, Object> - cannot assign  "new Properties()" to
> it any more, unless you do the double-fisted cast
> (Map<String,Object>)(Object)
> If that is the trade off, I think I would rather have it be <String,
> Object>.
+1 from me for Map<String, Object>


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message