I'm going to code subclasses in my code to get something done before we get to the next Mahout release, and that will give me some practical experience with the whole business.
Meanwhile, consider the case of IdentityHashMap. If nothing else, the strategy approach means adding One class to the library, not 6. On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm also thinking of the added complexity in the code, and slight > possible performance hit to injecting this level of flexibility. My > gut says it's perhaps questionable, but I base that on nothing but > gut. > > I'm thinking of this versus, in special cases like you mention, just > proceeding with a wrapper or subclass? how bad is that? > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Drew Farris <drew.far...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What's the use case for needing to vary the hash function? > > > > I was doing something funky with string prefixes the other day and > > could have used something like this baked into collections already. I > > vote for the strategy pattern. > > >
