In a world of ininite coding time then I would be helping create maps in primitives, possibly based on those in the PCJ project (sourceforge). I don't think there is any doubt that maps need creating and [primitives] is the right project for that at Apache.
If you want to help out in creating maps, I would be happy to help code review, discuss and make the commits. Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > No, classes for this purpose which previously existed in collections were > moved to (and released from) the commons proper project primitives. > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/primitives > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Arun Thomas wrote: > > > Ash, > > > > Classes for this purpose which previously existed in COLLECTIONS were moved to the Sandbox project - PRIMITIVES. Please take a look there. There's apparently a lot of work going on with these classes, so check it out. > > > > -AMT > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ash .. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:51 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [collections] Primitive-value maps > > > > > > While waiting for a +1 on the MapUtils.getPrimxxxValue() methods, I have > > been wondering why the commons collections framework does not have Maps that > > store and help retrieve primitive values. > > > > Stuff like IntMap with put(Object key, int value), etc. > > > > I mean, when there are primitive-value collections (lists and sets), why not > > map? Maybe this was discussed before. In any case, perhaps we can have them. > > Comments. > > > > Ash > > > > > > > > Reposting this, so that if we are decided on the method signatures, I can work on the implementation this weekend. Ash > > > > > > [Stephen] > > >I would only add the > > >full signature version (with default). That way the method name can > > >just be getDouble(). > > > > But that would provoke the question "if I want to retrieve a primitive without specifying a default, why should I have to mention a default (even > > 0) everytime??" > > > > I would propose we inlclude both variants (with and sans default), and have a uniform naming for them. Even if we add only the default-taking method today, what if we decide tomorrow that the defaultless one can be useful. > > > > And then, I think it is ok if we cannot preserve the same method names. > > > > so, I propose the following: > > > > public static double getIntValue(Map map, Object key) > > public static double getIntValue(Map map, Object key, int defaultValue) > > > > etc for each prim (and String) > > > > Waiting for feedback from others. > > > > I can implement these methods after I am done with the subarray(prim[]) ones. > > > > > > >This is a very old class in [collections] and pre-dates me. I would > > >probably > > >oppose adding these methods now. > > > > But why?? > > > > > > Ash > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > >This is a very old class in [collections] and pre-dates me. I would > > >probably > > >oppose adding these methods now. However, now that we have them, I would > > >support having the primitive methods as you propose. I would only add the > > >full signature version (with default). That way the method name can just be > > >getDouble(). > > >Stephen > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Ash .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I am curious to know why MapUtils does not have getters that return > > > > primitive types. Perhaps there was a discussion on whether it was > > > > needed > > >or > > > > not, you could point me to such discussion that took place in the > > > > past > > >when > > > > this class was conceived. > > > > In any case, I think that getters that return primitives could be > > > > very useful, much more than those that return wrapper objects. Thus, > > > > I think > > >we > > > > could do with methods like: > > > > > > > > MapUtils.getDoubleValue(Map map, Object key [,defaultValue]); > > > > > > > > If the answer to my question is "you can do a > > > > MapUtils.getDouble(map, > > > > key).doubleValue() and so on", > > > > I would say, having a built-in method enhances the use of this class > > >than > > > > having a programmer resort to such multiple method call. Of course, > > > > the internal implementation would do the same, but in the end, > > > > client code > > >would > > > > look far neater. > > > > > > > > Let me know, > > > > Ash > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection > > http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > - Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
