Jörn Kottmann wrote:
Marshall Schor wrote:
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>.
+1 from me for Map<String, Object>
If there are no objections I would like to start with the change
to get it done before our 28th deadline.
Jörn
