On 05/13/2013 08:06 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > Hi, > > currently, the Bag interface states that it violates the Collection > contract. This is mainly because the interface was defined like that, > but could be easily changed. > > As we are not binary compatible anymore with previous releases, it would > be the right time to do this now (or leave it as it is till the end of > time). > > Any opinions / objections on this?
Ok, I needed some time to digest the feedback. The result of playing around with an adapter from the Bag interface to a newly proposed Multiset is attached to COLLECTIONS-468. The Multiset interface would be exactly the same as Bag, with the difference that it conforms to the Collection super-interface (Multiset deliberately does not extend Bag). The rest of the classes in the bag package could be migrated to a new multiset package, basically providing the same functionality. Additionally, there would be a MultisetUtils.asMultiset(Bag) method which wraps a Bag as a Multiset (in case there is a need for something like that). This would give the users the choice, and we can later on still decide if we remove the Bag interface after all. I am not in favor of code duplication, but I see the benefit of both interfaces. The adapter alone would limit the use of a Multiset, as the unmodifiable, transformed and synchronized decorators would have to be duplicated anyway. Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
