Thank you for the explanation. It sounds like leaving it as is better. Gary
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024, 2:25 AM Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 21:47, Gary D. Gregory <ggreg...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Clause, Albert, and all, > > > > Why not make Hasher more functional like so: > > > > public interface Hasher extends Function<Shape, IndexProducer> > > > > It would implement the standard `apply` instead of `indices`. > > > > WDYT? > > > > Gary > > > > I do not see any problems with this. However it may have little benefit > other than being consistent with the Java API. Once you have an > IndexProducer you typically put all the indices into a Bloom filter. But > you cannot construct a BloomFilter from an IndexProducer alone as you > require the Shape. So at present I cannot see a common use case for the > chaining methods (compose, apply) that come with the Function interface. > > Alex >
