actually, i take that back.
It appears that trinidad-impl does not use commons-collections any more.
--arjuna
On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I agree.
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.
Actually, we don't need a public API at all now.
I am now thinking that we could remove the ValueMap class completely, and
instead use the
collections DualHashBidiMap directly.
However, it does add an implementation dependency on commons to the
trinidad-api package.
Note that the trinidad-impl package already has such a dependency.
I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> dependency on commons-collections for this
> one feature.
Does it make a difference if the trinidad-impl package already depends on
this?
--arjuna
-- 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
