On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, James Strachan wrote:
> > From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > * use size() method rather than getCount() to be more Java 2
> > > collections-like
> > >
> >
> > Sounds good. The original classes were written pre-Java2, so now would be
> > a good time to update the names (and make any other changes that improve
> > their integration with the Java2 collections classes as appropriate).
>
> You could say that the verbs "add" and "remove" are used quite a lot in the
> Java 2 collections.
>
> <aside>
> I saw somewhere today that the Java 2 collections are referred to as the
> Java Collection Framework or JCF which is a new one on me).
> </aside>
>
I vaguely recall having seem the "JCF" acronym ...
> So the Queue interface might be more JCF-like if it were:-
>
> public interface Queue {
> public void add(Object);
>
> // blocking remove
> public Object remove();
> public Object remove(long timeout);
>
> // non-blocking
> public Object removeNoWait();
>
> // peek - doesn't remove
> public Object get();
> }
>
> I'm less sure about the get() method. getFirst() would be like LinkedList?
> Maybe leaving it as peek() is more appropriate....
>
I think peek() does a better job than get() at telling you which element
you're going to get back. Saying getFirst() isn't technically accurate on
a LIFO queue ...
>
> James
>
Craig
