[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13961001#comment-13961001
]
Dipanjan Laha commented on COLLECTIONS-508:
-------------------------------------------
No issues Thomas. You can take a look at the new patch I am submitting
now(MultiValuedMap_6). This has the changes of the last patch and the new
behavior for get (as decided on the mailing list) and tests for it. I have also
added support for load factor, initial capacity and initial collection
capacity. I have added overloaded constructors for the same. Please review
these and also the parameter ordering of the overloaded constructor, I am not
sure about that. I have also added a SetValuedMap interface, but no
implementations or factory methods for that yet.
I actually have one question regarding the ListValued and the SetValued maps.
We would need concrete implementation as down casting of MultiValuedMap won't
work. So should I add abstract implementations for these which would down cast
the collection appropriately? The factory methods in MultiValudHashMap can
initialize these anonymously and return them. What do you think?
> 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,
> MultiValuedMap_3.patch, MultiValuedMap_4.patch, MultiValuedMap_5.patch,
> TransformedMultiValuedMap.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)
