I'm unclear on whether the question is where Guava stopped, or why we included the fixed-args versions as well as the varargs versions?
Part of the answer, of course, is that those factories predate @SafeVarargs, and frankly even now Guava doesn't really depend on Java 7. If you're asking about why we stopped where we did, we collected actually rather a lot of data on the size of static collection constants using immutable collections, both with builder syntax and without. https://github.com/google/guava/issues/2071#issuecomment-126468933 has the statistics (in terms of ratios, not absolute numbers), but we found that there was right about an exponential trend: static collection constants of size n+1 were ~half as common as collection constants of size n. On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 6:56 AM Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@joda.org> > > À: "core-libs-dev" <core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net> > > Envoyé: Vendredi 9 Octobre 2015 15:11:47 > > Objet: Re: RFC: draft API for JEP 269 Convenience Collection Factories > > > > On 9 October 2015 at 00:39, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > [...] > > > > 2. Other concrete collection factories. > > > > > > I've chosen to provide factories for the concrete collections > ArrayList, > > > HashSet, and HashMap, since those seem to be the most commonly used. Is > > > there a need to provide factories for other concrete collections, such > as > > > LinkedHashMap? > > > > LinkedHashMap definitely > > LinkedList definitely not (as its very slow and use should not be > > encouraged). > > TreeSet/TreeMap, maybe, they'd need an extra parameter though. > > There is an issue with LinkedHashMap (resp LinkedHashSet), > it inherits from HashMap /facepalm/, and static methods are accessible > through class inheritance /facepalm/. > So if LinkedHashMap doesn't declare some methods of(), > LinkedHashMap.of("foo") > will return a HashMap :( > > cheers, > Rémi >
