commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Herve Quiroz <>
Subject [events] Re: [collections] Size and scope issues
Date Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:42:45 GMT
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 10:50:39PM +0100, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> From: "Noel J. Bergman" <>
> > > > - ALL the Unmodifiable crap
> >
> > > I can understand this. The reason the classes exist is for
> > > completeness and practicality. [collections] has interfaces
> > > that are not in the JDK, and they need unmodifiable decorators
> >
> > Steve, this is where I was wondering about the approach used in the
> [events]
> > message posted today.  Would that help, if applied consistently across
> > [collections]?
> Not really. Proxying would require a simple matching straegy.
> However, each collection has its own tricks when it comes to writing
> decorators. For an unmodifiable map for example, you must trap the main map,
> the keySet, the values collection and the entrySet. Plus you must trap the
> setValue on exposed MapEntry objects from the entrySet iterator and the
> toArray.

For maps, I agree with you.

Still, for PredicatedCollection, I think a simple proxy would do

Another possible use would be to have "interceptor" (borrowed from
[HiveMind]) proxies, that performs not only checking (as for
predicates), but also post- or pre- processing. I can't think of any
example right now... maybe to implement some caching mechanism ontop of
an existing collection?

Stephen, I am currently packing my classes. I'll send you a link so you
may have a look at my proxy stuff.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message