Perhaps you misunderstood me... decision is made... time will tell if you will get a lot of scepticism or not, and whether that will be a thorn in the toe, stone on the shoe, hair in the eye, or not...
Cheers Niclas On Aug 29, 2009 8:17 PM, "Greg Brown" <[email protected]> wrote: Here's why I described this as the "right" approach. The other day, when we were discussing this, it occurred to me that one way to address Ralph's and Noel's concerns might be to simply eliminate the Pivot-native collection classes (ArrayList, LinkedList, etc.) and move the adapter classes (ListAdapter, MapAdapter, and SetAdapter) up to org.apache.pivot.collections proper. The adapter classes are clearly named, so this wouldn't seem like an "artificial" or "contrived" design, and they allow developers to both take advantage of Pivot's collection interfaces and continue using the existing, well-known JDK collection classes. However, as Todd and I have reiterated, we think there are valid reasons for continuing to support Pivot's native collection implementations. It seemed to us that, if we leave the collections as they are, but simply draw more attention to the adapter classes, we might be able to address everyone's concerns. If you think that naming collisions, performance, or anything else related to the use of Pivot-native collections might be an issue, you are free to use the adapters. Otherwise, you can continue to use the Pivot-native versions. This way, we don't need to sacrifice one in favor of the other - both options are available, and can be applied as appropriate based on an individual developer's needs and tastes. G On Aug 29, 2009, at 2:51 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Greg Brown...
