And I now realize that we could consider mutable vs. immutable Pairs interface Pair (no setters) interface MutablePair extends Pair (same as Map.Entry) class BasicPair<K,V> implements Map.Entry, Pair.
? Gary On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > For my needs, I need something akin to a Smalltalk Association and the > current Pair works but it is not how I would like to see it implemented. > > I want an interface and a generics-based implementation (like Pair.) > > I find it weird to write "Map.Entry myAssoc = ..." but our Pair should > implement Map.Entry because M.E is a JRE interface just for this kind of > stuff even if the pair is not used in a Map. > > How about this pseudo-code: > > interface Pair extends Map.Entry (add some of our stuff in there if we need > it.) > class BasicPair<K,V> implements Pair. > > Then we can talk about adding primitive Pairs. > > Gary > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Stephen Colebourne > <scolebou...@joda.org>wrote: > >> On 3 March 2011 18:56, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > [SNIP] >> >> I don't love the new Pair class. We have an interface based version >> >> here at OpenGamma to allow primitive implementations for performance. >> >> I might be able to get our code released if there was interest. >> > >> > Providing interfaces without code that consumes them doesn't feel like >> > [lang]'s mission; this is akin to providing exceptions we don't use >> > IMHO. It might be okay for Pair<L, R> to implement Map.Entry<L, R>, >> > for example. But when you say primitive implementations, do you mean >> > implementations based around primitive types, or simplistic >> > implementations? If the latter, how much more simplistic could it >> > get? >> >> Our OpenGamma pair is an abstract class (not an interface!): >> public abstract class Pair<A, B> implements Map.Entry<A, B>, >> Comparable<Pair<A, B>>, Serializable >> >> There are concrete implementations for ObjectsPair, DoublesPair, >> IntDoublePair etc. where the user can access the primitive type >> directly, or just use the base generified class. The question is >> whether [lang] wants no Pair, a simple one, or a full-featured one >> (where people may disagree on what full-featured should look like). >> >> Stephen >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Thank you, > Gary > > http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ > http://garygregory.com/ > http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ > http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
