Jörn Kottmann wrote: > The additionalParams Map has a String key and can contains > all kinds of Objects, so the correct generification would be > Map<String, Object>. > > In the uima code base I found one invocation where a Properties object > was > passed as additionalParams. Properties is a Map<Object, Object> which > will cause compile errors in user code when they use a Properties > object to pass > in the additional params. > I don't think its common practice to use Properties for additional > params. >
If we fix the one found use cited above, are there any other cases where instances of Properties are passed as additionalParams in our own code? What do we think is the likelyhood that users will use Properties as instances of additional params? Our documentation says "See the Javadocs" for info on the additional parameters. The Javadocs say this is a Map ... Valid parameter names are defined as constants on the XYZ Interface ... and in that interface, these constants are Strings. But users might decide to represent these parameters in a properties file. Here are some considerations (apologies if I get this wrong - please correct): - If we declare as <Object, Object>, then you cannot assign a Map<String, Object> to the parameter. - Having the key of the map be an Object is more general, and would accommodate Properties. - declaring as <String, Object> - cannot assign "new Properties()" to it any more, unless you do the double-fisted cast (Map<String,Object>)(Object) If that is the trade off, I think I would rather have it be <String, Object>. -Marshall > Should we change it anyway and add a known issue to our release notes ? > > Jörn > >
