On 11/9/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I was suggesting is that we have a BidiMap interface, and a BidiHashMap implementation of that interface. So if you're going to have a getInvertedMap() function, it should return a BidiMap.
On the topic of general purpose "bidi" maps, it might be worth comparing notes with the Jakarta Collections project, which IIRC has a similar class. It might be possible to use such an existing implementation and/or collaborate on a feature set that meets everyone's needs within the context of that project. -- Adam Craig On 11/9/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought you would prefer BidiHashMap because > the internal implementation is two HashMaps. > > When I proposed ReverseMap, you suggested ReverseHashMap, > so now that I like BidiMap, I proposed BidiHashMap because > I thought you would prefer that :) > > what say you? > > > On 11/8/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shouldn't it be BidiMap? Not BidiHashMap? > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-282 > > > --arjuna > > > > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Also, can I call this method getInvertedMap? > > > > > > > > Map<V,K> BidiHashMap<K,V>.getInvertedMap() > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 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 <[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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 <[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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > > > > > > > > > > > further stuff: > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
