[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14177605#comment-14177605
]
Dipanjan Laha commented on COLLECTIONS-508:
-------------------------------------------
[~tn] Do you think we should close this ticket, we would be having separate
tickets for the different implementations we add.
> 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
> Assignee: Dipanjan Laha
> Attachments: MultiValuedMap.patch, MultiValuedMap_10.patch,
> MultiValuedMap_2.patch, MultiValuedMap_3.patch, MultiValuedMap_4.patch,
> MultiValuedMap_5.patch, MultiValuedMap_6.patch, MultiValuedMap_7.patch,
> MultiValuedMap_8.patch, MultiValuedMap_9.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
(v6.3.4#6332)
