commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rahul Akolkar" <>
Subject Re: [collections] Generifying Collections
Date Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:37:06 GMT
On 10/25/06, Niall Pemberton <> wrote:
> Having said that, its not me thats going to be doing the work, but it
> does seem valuable to discuss port vs. refactor rather than refactor
> being a defacto decission and just having an argument on package
> names.


Its not going to be me either, which is why I have (more or less)
retired from the conversation. You're right that this isn't about
package names, but really whether the intent is to produce a backwards
compatible generified collections:

 * If so, be encumbered with whatever that entails
 * If not, acknowledge with new collections package

It appears to me that the latter might bring more joy to the
development of the new collections and result in elegance and entirety
of the transformation, but for the reason I mentioned a couple of
paragraphs ago, my opinion is not as important as some others.


P.S.- Regarding your Collections#max question, using casts like you
suggest compromises the upper bound of T in the signature, and doesn't
convey the correct information to the reader (and arguably more
importantly, to the compiler, which consequently cannot guarantee the
author-intended type safety, at which point the value proposition of
using generics diminishes greatly)

> Niall

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

View raw message