Proposed method sigs look OK to me. > public static double getIntValue(Map map, Object key) > public static double getIntValue(Map map, Object key, int defaultValue)
Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ash .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:50 PM Subject: RE: FW: [collections] MapUtils.getXxx() return types - repost > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
