[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-728?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16990829#comment-16990829
]
Gilles Sadowski commented on COLLECTIONS-728:
---------------------------------------------
{quote}The naming is intended to provide a proxy for the implementation details
{quote}
That's what I had understood, but I find it a fragile way. Who gives the name?
What if two developers implement the same hash algorithm? How can a third party
developer be sure that identical names will provide the same behaviour? [ Case
in point: the original name of a "broken" implementation (of some hash
function) will *not* be "MyBrokenFunction" ;) ].
{quote}so that the user may be warned
{quote}
Could it be possible to enable a stronger check? E.g. compare the output of
applying the hash computation to some known/reference input.
{quote}to ensure that we have the same "vision" of this contribution.
{quote}
Good point. :)
I don't know. I'd guess that most (?) codes in "Commons" are building blocks
(for application developers) that provide a _complete_ solution to often
encountered self-contained issues; broadly speaking, they would be readily
usable, by _composition_, rather than requiring an extension to be fully
functional.
> BloomFilter contribution
> ------------------------
>
> Key: COLLECTIONS-728
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COLLECTIONS-728
> Project: Commons Collections
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Claude Warren
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: BF_Func.md, BloomFilter.java, BloomFilterI2.java,
> Usage.md
>
>
> Contribution of BloomFilter library comprising base implementation and gated
> collections.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
