Maybe we _should_ revisit splitting the record class. Now, we have the following slots:
CSVRecord: comment : String mapping : Map<String, Integer> recordNumber : long values : String[] If we take out mapping and put in it a subclass, that reduces the "size" of the plain record by 25%: CSVRecord: comment : String recordNumber : long values : String[] CSVRecordMap extends CSVRecord mapping : Map<String, Integer> or: CSVRecordMap extends CSVRecord implements Map<String, String> mapping : Map<String, Integer> Thoughts? Gary On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Le 15/01/2014 07:17, Benedikt Ritter a écrit : > > A wrapper of some kind like Adrian suggested sounds like the way to go > > here. Maybe we could have something like: > > > > Map<String, String> map = CSVRecordUtils.toMap(record); > > I had something like that in mind too, but I would rather use > record.toMap() and avoid exposing a new class. > > Emmanuel Bourg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
