Please feel free to submit a documentation patch for the relevant methods;-)
Stephen > from: Todd Jonker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:26:41 > to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > subject: Re: [collections] Question about CollectionUtils semantics > > Agreed. Documentation is absolutely needed. In fact, this exact issue cost > me several hours of debugging time when I first started using the library. > The fact is that, for example, ArrayList operations work fine without hash, > but CollectionUtils augmentations don't. > > Like Greg, I very rarely implement hash, since I tend not to need it, and > its a major pain to code properly. > > .T. > > On 1/28/03 11:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Peter... > > > > Ok, fair enough. Point well taken. If I expect hash-related data > > structures to > > work I need to complete the implementation of my objects. But... are you > > advocating that a programmer have intimate knowledge of an API's > > implementation > > in order to get the "expected" semantics? The fact remains that there > > is a behavior > > difference between the commons and java APIs, for whatever reason. > > Neither documentation set stresses the importance of implementing #hashCode > > (and at least in my experience this is not something I would commonly do > > for every object I create). At the very least this should be documented > > heavily > > to reset users' expectations or the semantics changed. > > > > Regards, > > Greg > > -- > WAR is NOT a NECESSITY > > http://www.UnitedForPeace.org/ > http://www.NotInOurName.net/ > http://www.MoveOn.org/ > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
