[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13924977#comment-13924977
 ] 

Thomas Neidhart commented on COLLECTIONS-508:
---------------------------------------------

I did take a look at the second patch:

 * the AbstractMultiValuedMapDecorator is not what the name implies: it is 
rather an AbstractMultiValuedMap, a decorator for a MultiValuedMap should just 
delegate all calls of the MultiValuedMap interface to an underlying instance.
 * it would help if you use the same checkstyle/formatting settings as the 
project, especially trailing spaces should be removed
 * documentation is missing
 * you can add the Bag<K> keys() method. If we really add a MultiValuedSet we 
can easily change it later

If you update these things,  I can commit it as a first version and we can 
continue working on it, I would like to have at least the following things 
before a 4.1 release:

 * Unmodifiable decorator
 * Transformed decorator

@Put/Get interface:

I know that Matt mentioned them, but I do not really see a value in or use-case 
for them. Unless somebody really convinces me that this is useful I would keep 
it aside.

> MultiMap's methods are not strongly typed even though the interface supports 
> generics
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COLLECTIONS-508
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-508
>             Project: Commons Collections
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Map
>    Affects Versions: 4.0
>            Reporter: Dipanjan Laha
>         Attachments: MultiValuedMap.patch, MultiValuedMap_2.patch
>
>
> Recently I had the need of using a MultiMap in one of my projects. While 
> using the same, I found that the MultiMap interface  has methods that are not 
> strongly typed even though the interface supports generics. For example if I 
> have a MultiMap like so
> MultiMap<String, User> multiMap = new MultiValueMap<String, User>();
> where User is a custom  Class, then the get(key) method would return me an 
> Object which I would need to cast to a Collection like so
> Collection<User> userCol = (Collection<User>) multiMap.get(key);
> I understand that this limitation comes from that fact that the MultiMap 
> extends IterableMap which in turn extends Map and other interfaces. Hence the 
> MultiMap cannot have a get method which returns a Collection instead of 
> Object as that would mean implementing IterableMap with the Generics set to 
> be <K,Collection<V>>. In that case the put method's signature would become
> public Collection<V> put(K key, Collection<V> value); 
> which we do not want.The same problem would arise with other methods as well, 
> ex: containsValue method. 
> My proposal is why carry on the signatures of a Map and put it on MultiMap. 
> Where as I do agree that it is a Map after all and has very similar 
> implementation and functionality, it is very different at other levels. And 
> even though the MultiMap interface supports generics, the methods are not 
> strongly typed, which defeats the purpose of having generics. So why can't we 
> have a separate set of interfaces for MultiMap which do not extend Map. That 
> way we can have strongly typed methods on the MultiMap.
> I have included a a patch for these changes. It is not fully complete and has 
> some gaps in some TestCases and the documentation but gives a fairly good 
> idea of what I am talking about. Please let me know your thoughts on taking 
> this approach. Then i will improve the implementation and submit another 
> patch.
> The other way could be that we let MultiMap extend the interfaces it does 
> today, but with proper types rather than Object. I mean something like this
> public interface MultiMap<K,V> extends IterableMap<K,Collection<V>> instead 
> of 
> public interface MultiMap<K,V> extends IterableMap<K,Object>
> And then have a separate set of methods on the MultiMap interface which 
> supports the specific MultiMap functionality. For example, the put method 
> with the above implementation would become 
> Collection<V> put(K key, Collection<V> value)
> and we can have another method as 
> V putValue(K key, V value)
> This way the functionality of Map is preserved along with strongly typed 
> MultiMap methods. If you feel that this approach is better than the earlier 
> one, i will implement the same and submit a patch



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Reply via email to