commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen Colebourne <>
Subject Re: [collections] Generics & the collection subpackage
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:47:01 GMT
There has been reltively little feedback on these backwards incompatible 
changes. Do I assume (by lazy consensus) that [collections-generics] 
will be seriously backwards incompatible? Can I commit changes? Are we 
agreed on the strategy "produce the best API", rather than "produce a 
compatible API".


Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> First analysis of the collection subpackage of [collections] for the 
> generics branch.
> - BoundedCollection should be deleted/renamed to Bounded
> new Bounded interface would not implement Collection, allowing it to be 
> implemented by Maps as well as Collections
> - UnmodifiableBoundedCollection should be deleted
> Just use the isFull/maxSize methods on CollectionUtils or similar
> - AbstractSerializedCollectionDecorator should be deleted
> Serialization can now be rolled up into the base decorator
> This simplifies a lot of code
> It wasn't done originally due to back-compat
> - TransformedCollection will need some thinking about to generify, as a 
> transformer can change object types
> - Consider adding a Decorator interface
> This would provide a single method decorated() that obtains the 
> collection that has been decorated.
> Whilst useful, this is also potentially dangerous exposure of state.
> - Consider adding a Container interface
> This would be a base super interface for Collection and Map (but 
> obviously we can't hack the JDK.
> - Consider whether UnmodifiableCollection should be deleted as it 
> duplicates the JDK.
> Stephen
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message