----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael A. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [Collections] non-compatible changes
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, James Strachan wrote: > > > It's not ideal, but it's a little late in the game to change it. I've > > > updated the documentation to point out this behaviour. (Also, the fact > > that > > > changes to the keySet() are reflected by the Map is in keeping with the > > > general contract for Map.) > > > > > > I would be willing to retract my -1 if you got buy-in from James and there > > > were no other objections. However, if we're going to fix it, let's make > > it > > > agree with the Map contract. Personally, changing it at this point makes > > me > > > uncomfortable, and I'd rather not do it. > > > > I kinda agree with you both ;-) > > > > I think ultimately BeanMap should be fixed to truly implement the Map > > interface if we can. Though the Collections package is built around the idea > > that not all operations need to be supported, so using unmodifiable > > collections for keySet() seems to make sense; especially as keys cannot be > > removed or added - only values can be updated. > > > > So I'd prefer keySet() to be unmodifiable and values() to be modifiable and > > reflected in the Map - if it can't be reflected easily (or until it gets > > implemented) then I'd prefer it to be unmodifiable as well for now. Its > > better for a feature to not be available than for it to be wrong. > > Morgan, > > Is this considered buy-in from James? If so, I'll get to work > implementing this stuff and getting the changes in as quickly as possible. > > regards, > michael Works for me, as long as nobody else objects. - Morgan _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
