I'm -0 on long size(), but if the two of us are the only ones with a current opinions we can close as Won't Fix. On 27 Oct 2015 11:18, "Sergio Fernández (JIRA)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-17?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14976153#comment-14976153 > ] > > Sergio Fernández commented on COMMONSRDF-17: > -------------------------------------------- > > I agree on trying to solve this; but sorry, my opinion stays with using > {{Graph.size(): long}} as the best choice. > > > Size method > > ----------- > > > > Key: COMMONSRDF-17 > > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-17 > > Project: Apache Commons RDF > > Issue Type: Improvement > > Reporter: Reto Gmür > > > > The size method is problematic for two reasons: > > - it is incompatible with the Collections-API, implementations cannot at > the same time implement Collection<Triple> (even though a Graph is a > collection of triples). > > - With some types of implementations calculating the exact size of a > graph can be very expensive and often the client just requires an > approximate size > > So I propose to replace the size method with the following > > [- size: int: same as in Collection.size (returns Integer.MAX_VALUE for > bigger graphs) ] > > - exactSize: long: the exact size > > - approximateSize: long: the approximate size > > For all but exactSize the interface can provide default implementations. > > > > -- > This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA > (v6.3.4#6332) >
