[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-17?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14986813#comment-14986813
]
Sergio Fernández edited comment on COMMONSRDF-17 at 11/3/15 7:04 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Summarizing all opinions, here and at the original github issue, if I'm right
we have:
* +1 for {{long size()}}: [~wikier], [~andy.seaborne], [~p_ansell]
* -0 for {{long size()}}: [~stain]
* -1 for {{long size()}}: [~reto]
was (Author: wikier):
Summarizing all opinions, here and at the original github issue, if I'm right
we have:
* +1 for `long size()`: [~wikier], [~andy.seaborne], [~p_ansell]
* -0 for `long size()`: [~stain]
* -1 for `long size()`: [~reto]
> 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)
