> Your search is likely to be in vain ... primitives like "int" in Java > are not actually objects. The best you can do is make your keys > instances of the corresponding wrapper classes (like java.lang.Integer) > if you want to actually implement the java.util.Map contract. > > It's possible that the auto-boxing features in JDK 1.5 can create a > convincing simulation that you're really using primitives as keys, but > under the covers it will still be using wrapper objects even there. > > Craig
The above is certainly true, but despite of possibly being not compatible with java.util.Map- interface, a dedicated primitive-keyed (or valued) map would be powerful (meaning requiring less space and having better performance) in many situations. See http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/ for one implementation, especially TIntObjectHashMap in http://trove4j.sourceforge.net/javadocs/. I would be delighted to see something like this in commons-collections. - Tatu V. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
