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>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of bnordgren@fs.fed.us designates
 166.3.112.4 as permitted sender)
In-Reply-To: <4487D1D5.5010809@btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: Collections-events
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Message-ID: 
 <OFFF84FA47.86314614-ON87257187.0068E804-87257187.006AFCE7@fs.fed.us>
From: Bryce L Nordgren <bnordgren@fs.fed.us>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:28:35 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> wrote on 06/08/2006
01:29:25 AM:

> > I would be willing to help revive collections-events if there is
interest.
> > Even more so if it can happen with generics support.
>
> Logically, this would be a generics only project now. Does this affect
> you Bryce? (If it does, then perhaps we might need to try retro*)

I could go either way.  I'd be biased towards keeping it 1.4 just because I
don't think Generics adds anything to this particular block of code.  How
would you even use Generics with ObservableCollection/Set/Map/List?  If
there's a legitimate use of generics within the package, I may be
convinced.  Generics seems more applicable to commons-collections.

Jeez, you start porting commons-collections to generics and you've suddenly
got an awful lot of overlap with Java5 SE.  You've got a really good thing
going on here with your implementation!  You have a typed collections
framework which does not require a JVM change.  Furthermore, if you do use
a java 5 sdk targeted to java1.4, your type-checking still works (unlike
the J2SE package).  Why would you want to change that and become redundant?

But the best reason to stay at 1.4, at least for now: it seems to already
work!  I really don't understand why this was mothballed.  Might it be
released as 0.1 in its current state, then refactored to 1.5 in the next
release?

On the other hand, I don't have a good grasp of why one would use generics
at all, especially at the cost of breaking compatibility with many existing
systems.  Take it with a grain of salt. :) Now if it was a full-up template
facility, I could see using it.

Bryce


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