Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-ID: <00b101c3d0b5$84ed2d60$bf248051@oemcomputer>
From: "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebourne@btopenworld.com>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
References: <002201c3ce56$83b6a400$515f8051@oemcomputer>
 <008501c3d09b$4bf8a300$bf248051@oemcomputer> <3FF4805B.8000500@steitz.com>
Subject: Re: [collections] BinaryHeap and PriorityQueue
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 22:20:52 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> > We could go further and actually deprecated PQ. But I'm a little wary of
> > that.
>
> We should decide whether or not Queue implementations belong in
> [collections].  I am +0 on this (the "+" is because BinaryHeap/Buffer
> exists). If no, we should deprecate.  See below.
> >
> > (And both BinaryHeap and BinaryBuffer still need their remove bug fixing
:-)
>
> As noted in bug report, I have a fix ready to commit.  What I don't like
> about the setup above is that this and all other fixes / enhancements need
> to be applied to both classes.
I am happy for Buffer to exist in [collections]  (although I wish the
methods were peek and pop) Given a choice I would deprecate PQ altogether.

Your change will need to be applied to both BinaryBuffer and BinaryHeap,
unless we make BinaryHeap wrap a BinaryBuffer (maintaining the old
interface).

I am +1 on renaming to PriorityBuffer.

Stephen


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