Hi *, while the idea is fine, it is not clear to me how you intend implementing it. Please fill an issue and attach a patch so we can discuss also about the "how" and not only "what" :)
best, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Marco Speranza <marco.speranz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys, > >> * the mapping between primitive types and their respective default >> *Operations is known and kept somewhere (abstract class, etc); >> * each algorithm specifies only once the set of primitive types that >> it accepts; >> * with a bit of magic (?) we combine the above to provide shortcuts to >> the user. > > +1 > > I think that a mapper can be useful. > we can create a default mapper between primitives and *Operations and add a > void API like that > findMaxFlow( graph ).from( a ).to( g ).applying<Algorithm>( void ). > we can choose the correct Operation mappimng directly on the default > constructor using our mapper. > > so for the primitives Integer, Double etc, the user doesn't have to specify > anything. > > for a graph that uses a custom weight's type, the user can use the > findMaxFlow( graph ).from( a ).to( g ).applying<Algorithm>( OrderMonoid ) ) > API. > > WDYT ? > > ciao > > > -- > Marco Speranza <marco.speranz...@gmail.com> > > Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcosperanza79/ > Google Code: http://code.google.com/u/marco.speranza79/ > > > > > Il giorno 12/feb/2012, alle ore 21:20, Claudio Squarcella ha scritto: > >> Hi Simone, >> >>>> Would it be so terrible to maintain such redundancy? >>> IMHO, yes, because: >>> >>> * it has to be applied in each class of algorithms we support; >>> >>> * switching to proposed APIs, would proliferate that APIs in each >>> algorithm; >>> >>> * weight types are driven by generics, so users cannot bind wrong >>> weight monoid already at compile time. >>> >>> more proposals? :) >> >> ok fair enough, you were quite convincing :) >> >> Before giving up, one more alternative: >> >> * the mapping between primitive types and their respective default >> *Operations is known and kept somewhere (abstract class, etc); >> * each algorithm specifies only once the set of primitive types that >> it accepts; >> * with a bit of magic (?) we combine the above to provide shortcuts to >> the user. >> >> Note: I don't want to over-engineer, I would just like the user not to >> specify default *Operations, because that is also redundant from his/her >> point of view. >> >> Ciao and thanks, >> Claudio >> >> -- >> Claudio Squarcella >> PhD student at Roma Tre University >> http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~squarcel >> http://squarcella.com/ >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
