I don't know that I agree that the other implementations are more "correct" necessarily. The bounding logic can (and has been) abstracted out as a wrapper class. So, ideally you could bound any buffer using BoundedBuffer. So, if you wanted to use a FifoBuffer (queue) or a LifoBuffer (stack), you could bound it by wrapping it with a BoundedBuffer. Maybe it would be better called a BoundedBufferDecorator or something. Isn't this how object-oriented systems are supposed to be designed, modular?
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:47 AM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [collections] Collections 3.2/4.0 BoundedBuffer is unreleased, so can be removed. I want to remove it, as I believe it doesn't hold its weight. If you want a bounded buffer, our recommendation is to use BoundedFifoBuffer or CircularFifoBuffer. These are both optimised implementations for the fixed size. Adding BoundedBuffer only serves to draw attention away from the 'correct' implementations that people should be using. Stephen --- Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/9/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > What would make BoundedBuffer more a 4.0 thing as > opposed to a 3.2 thing? > > Or were you saying that we should agree on the > contents for 4.0? > > Removing things from an API happened at major > version numbers rather > than minor ones I thought. > > Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
