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.
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> >
> >
>
