The analogous class in [functor], btw, is CompositeUnaryFunction.
-Matt
--- On Mon, 6/8/09, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> From: James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> Subject: Re: [collections] ChainedTransformer...
> To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
> Date: Monday, June 8, 2009, 8:45 AM
> I was more thinking of the
> concepts. I agree this kind of stuff
> should move into functor.
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Matt Benson<gudnabr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > James,
> > I refactored the comparable classes in [functor] to
> work just that way. I didn't feel it was worth my personal
> effort to do it again in [collections] given all the
> discussion around the future of [collections]' functors.
> Didn't we all agree we could provide analogous
> functionality to that provided in [collections] in [functor]
> and later deprecate the [collections] functors?
> >
> > -Matt
> >
> > --- On Sun, 6/7/09, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>
> >> Subject: [collections] ChainedTransformer...
> >> To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
> >> Date: Sunday, June 7, 2009, 10:22 PM
> >> All,
> >>
> >> I thought I'd check out the
> collections_jdk5_branch to see
> >> if there
> >> was anything that I could tinker with. I decided
> to
> >> look into the
> >> functors, since that's what I'm mainly interested
> in.
> >> Immediately I
> >> noticed ChainedTransformer. It's declared as:
> >>
> >> public class ChainedTransformer<T>
> implements
> >> Transformer<T, T>, Serializable
> >>
> >> So, does this mean that a ChainedTransformer
> always has to
> >> have the
> >> same input and output types? Transformer is
> declared
> >> as:
> >>
> >> public interface Transformer<I, O> {
> >> public O transform(I input);
> >> }
> >>
> >> Shouldn't it support different input/output
> types?
> >>
> >> What I was thinking about would be a new way to
> think about
> >> these chains:
> >>
> >> public class ChainedTransformer<I,O>
> implements
> >> Transformer<I,O>
> >> {
> >> public
> ChainedTransformer(Transformer<I,O>
> >> initial);
> >> public O transform(I input);
> >> public <T> ChainedTransformer<I,T>
> >> append(Transformer<O,T> next);
> >> }
> >>
> >> Typically, to create a ChainedTransformer, you
> have to put
> >> your
> >> transformers in a collection and pass them in to
> create
> >> one. This
> >> way, instead of having to create a new collection,
> you'd
> >> just append
> >> as you go. What do you think?
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
