On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Benedict, > > Benedikt Ritter wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> finally I've found the time to answer to this topic :) We had a similar >> discussion a while ago [1]. Back then James suggested to drop >> collections completely in favor of google guava. I have started to >> implement QueryableCollections in trunk anyway, because I still disagree >> with James. >> I would appreciate comments from one of commons collections commiters, >> if they would like to have something like that. I still think, that the >> possibility to query for elements would be a nice addition to collections. >> >> ATM I'm having some problems with the latest source: >> Name clash: The method get(K) of type MultiMap<K,V> has the same erasure >> as get(Object) of type Get<K,V> but does not override it >> >> Does anyone know something about that? > > That's a very unfortunate signature from the JDK interface and all I can > guess, why it defines Object as argument, is for compatibility reasons. If > we derive from the JDK interface, you cannot declare "get(K)", only > "get(Object)".
Actually, I approve of get(Object). No reason to stop Map clients from checking whether a given object is in the map, even if it never can be. Matt > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
