commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 16465] New: - ChainedHashMap new Java Collection Object
Date Mon, 27 Jan 2003 17:54:34 GMT
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16465>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16465

ChainedHashMap new Java Collection Object

           Summary: ChainedHashMap new Java Collection Object
           Product: Commons
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: Enhancement
          Priority: Other
         Component: Collections
        AssignedTo: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
        ReportedBy: jesse_chan@merck.com


Initially I submitted ChainedHashMap to the commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org 
mailing-list and Stephen told me to submit this in Bugzilla so a committer 
would remember to look at it.    Thanks.  You'll have to go back to the mailing 
list to get the code, this bug entry is just a reminder.  Email dialogue below.

Jesse Chan
---

Primarily its a matter of a committer having time to look at it. At present, 
there is no push for a release of collections, although I suspect it may come. 
At that time the loose ends tend to get tidied. Anyway, its on the list of 
things to do. (Also, a Bugzilla entry may help us to remember ;-)

Stephen

>  from:    "Chan, Jesse Rosetta" <jesse_chan@merck.com>
> I was wondering if my last submission of ChainedHashMap (attached) will make
> it into Jakarta.  Everything is in place for submission except for the small
> bits outlined below... and I think it answers the criteria you mentioned
> below.  I would really like to contribute it to Jakarta and help out.  I
> feel this is a complete implementation.  Any information would be greatly
> appreciated.  Thanks.
> 
> --
> Jesse Chan
> Software Engineer, LIMS
> Merck Research Laboratories
> Rosetta Inpharmatics LLC.
> Email: jesse_chan@merck.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chan, Jesse Rosetta 
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:36 PM
> To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [SUBMIT] jakarta.commons.Collections.ChainedHashMap
> 
> 
> ChainedHashMap and ChainedHashMapTest (the JUnit test) has been updated and
> I am submitting everything again.  It is now serializable.  Again, I am
> submitting this to Jakarta.  Several changes to it can be, as Stephen and
> Rich suggest, implementing MultiMap interface, change the package name, take
> off the copyright (I work for Rosetta, Merck Research Labs and this has been
> okay'd by my boss) but please leave my name as the primary author.  Thanks.
> 
> It is slightly different than MultiHashMap in the fact that MultiHashMap
> returns a Collection while ChainedHashMap returns an ArrayList on a get.
> While MultiHashMap is more generic, it does not guarantee the order of the
> values for a key, if you return into an "incorrect" Collection, such as a
> HashMap.  While a ChainedHashMap returns a single Object (based on index) or
> an ArrayList - which guarantees order.  While this difference is not very
> substantial, the reasoning behind ChainedHashMap, was order does matter.  So
> if you put a lot of values for a key, they should be in the order they were
> put in.  Is this sufficient enough to warrant difference between
> MultiHashMap?  There also are a lot more convenience methods in
> ChainedHashMap than MultiHashMap.  I feel this is a very complete
> implementation.  So if this warrants enough difference than MultiHashMap,
> then I suppose ChainedHashMap can implement MultiMap and stand on its own in
> the Collections package.  What are your thoughts, Stephen?  Or anyone else?
> 
> Not quite certain what this sentence means:
> 
> > - provide a use case for the difference applicable to server side Java
> 
> ChainedHashMap is asynchronous but can be synchronized since it extends
> HashMap.  So you can do the following:
> ChainedHashMap chm = (ChainedHashMap)Collections.synchronizedMap( new
> ChainedHashMap(...) );
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> --
> Jesse Chan
> Software Engineer, LIMS
> Merck Research Laboratories
> Rosetta Inpharmatics LLC.
> Email: jesse_chan@merck.com
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:27 PM
> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > Subject: Re: [SUBMIT] jakarta.commons.Collections.ChainedHashMap
> > 
> > 
> > Rich is correct here. To be included, I would suggest that 
> > ChainedHashMap
> > would need to
> > - implement MultiMap
> > - demonstrate sufficient difference from MultiHashMap
> > - provide a use case for the difference applicable to server side Java
> > 
> > Alternatively, patches to improve MultiHashMap are welcome.
> > 
> > Stephen
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chan, Jesse Rosetta" <jesse_chan@merck.com>
> > To: "'Jakarta Commons Developers List'" 
> > <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 10:11 PM
> > Subject: RE: [SUBMIT] jakarta.commons.Collections.ChainedHashMap
> > 
> > 
> > > Thanks for the advice, Rich.  I just looked at Jakarta 
> > Commons Collections
> > > Package API for MultiMap and MultiHashMap, it appears that 
> > MultiMap would
> > be
> > > a good interface for ChainedHashMap to implement.  I have submitted
> > > ChainedHashMap to Jakarta, so obviously the people that 
> > make the decisions
> > > can modify it freely :)  It appears that ChainedHashMap 
> > already implements
> > > all the methods in the MultiMap interface except the getName method.
> > > (Remember ChainedHashMap extends HashMap).  Just looking at the
> > MulitHashMap
> > > API, it looks as though there is overlap between MultiHashMap and
> > > ChainedHashMap.  However, it looks as though MultiMap is 
> > more generic than
> > > ChainedHashMap since it returns a Collection instead of, say, an
> > ArrayList.
> > > Hmmm...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jesse Chan
> > > Software Engineer, LIMS
> > > Merck Research Laboratories
> > > Rosetta Inpharmatics LLC.
> > > Email: jesse_chan@merck.com
> > >
> > > > --- original message ---
> > > >
> > > > Hi Jesse
> > > >
> > > > Welcome! I'm new around here too, so hopefully someone 
> > will jump in if
> > > > I'm wrong about this.
> > > >
> > > > ChainedHashMap should probably extend the MultiMap 
> > interface, which is
> > > > used for mapping keys to collections of values. Also 
> > ChainedHashMap
> > > > seems to be very similar to MultiHashMap (although
> > > > ChainedHashMap has a
> > > > much richer set of operations). Perhaps you could have a look at
> > > > MultiHashMap to see whether ChainedHashMap should be 
> > merged with this
> > > > class or whether it should stand on its own.
> > > >
> > > > Rich

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message