commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ash .." <equinus...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: FW: [collections] MapUtils.getXxx() return types
Date Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:08:53 GMT
>I would only add the
>full signature version (with default). That way the method name can just be
>getDouble().

But that would provoke the question "if I want to retrieve a primitive 
without specifying a default, why should I have to mention a default (even 
0) everytime??"

I would propose we inlclude both variants (with and sans default), and have 
a uniform naming for them. Even if we add only the default-taking method 
today, what if we decide tomorrow that the defaultless one can be useful.

And then, I think it is ok if we cannot preserve the same method names.

so, I propose the following:

public static double getIntValue(Map map, Object key)
public static double getIntValue(Map map, Object key, int defaultValue)

etc for each prim (and String)

Waiting for feedback from others.

I can implement these methods after I am done with the subarray(prim[]) 
ones.


>This is a very old class in [collections] and pre-dates me. I would 
>probably
>oppose adding these methods now.

But why??


Ash



>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
>
>
>This is a very old class in [collections] and pre-dates me. I would 
>probably
>oppose adding these methods now. However, now that we have them, I would
>support having the primitive methods as you propose. I would only add the
>full signature version (with default). That way the method name can just be
>getDouble().
>Stephen
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ash .." <equinus100@hotmail.com>
> > I am curious to know why MapUtils does not have getters that return
> > primitive types. Perhaps there was a discussion on whether it was needed
>or
> > not, you could point me to such discussion that took place in the past
>when
> > this class was conceived.
> > In any case, I think that getters that return primitives could be very
> > useful, much more than those that return wrapper objects. Thus, I think 
>we
> > could do with methods like:
> >
> > MapUtils.getDoubleValue(Map map, Object key [,defaultValue]);
> >
> > If the answer to my question is "you can do a MapUtils.getDouble(map,
> > key).doubleValue() and so on",
> > I would say, having a built-in method enhances the use of this class 
>than
> > having a programmer resort to such multiple method call. Of course, the
> > internal implementation would do the same, but in the end, client code
>would
> > look far neater.
> >
> > Let me know,
> > Ash
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. 
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess


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


Mime
View raw message