You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to adffaces-dev@incubator.apache.org by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> on 2006/10/24 21:18:38 UTC
make ValueMap public
Hi,
I'd like to make
org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
a public utility class.
This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
key. It is useful to create
ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
I'd like to call it
org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully implemented
(along with the remove operations).
What do you think about making this class public?
??????
If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
ReverseMap<K,V> map;
V value;
K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
or
Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
K Key = valuemap.get(value);
???
or should we have both?
--arjuna
Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
actually, i take that back.
It appears that trinidad-impl does not use commons-collections any more.
--arjuna
On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > the return type of any public API.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>
> We might consider introducing:
> >
> > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > {
> > Object getKey(Object value)
> > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > }
> >
> > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > dependency.
>
>
> Actually, we don't need a public API at all now.
> I am now thinking that we could remove the ValueMap class completely, and
> instead use the
> collections DualHashBidiMap directly.
>
> However, it does add an implementation dependency on commons to the
> trinidad-api package.
> Note that the trinidad-impl package already has such a dependency.
>
>
> I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > one feature.
>
>
> Does it make a difference if the trinidad-impl package already depends on
> this?
>
> --arjuna
>
> -- Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > >
> > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> >
> > >
> > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current
> > ValueMap?
> > >
> > > --arjuna
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <awiner@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > >
> > > > -- Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > >
> > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from
> > value to
> > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > >
> > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > > implemented
> > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > ??????
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > V value;
> > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > or
> > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > ???
> > > > >
> > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > >
> > > > > --arjuna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> the return type of any public API.
I agree.
We might consider introducing:
>
> org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> {
> Object getKey(Object value)
> BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> Object removeValue(Object value)
> }
>
> (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> implementation detail use a subclass of
> commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> dependency.
Actually, we don't need a public API at all now.
I am now thinking that we could remove the ValueMap class completely, and
instead use the
collections DualHashBidiMap directly.
However, it does add an implementation dependency on commons to the
trinidad-api package.
Note that the trinidad-impl package already has such a dependency.
I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> dependency on commons-collections for this
> one feature.
Does it make a difference if the trinidad-impl package already depends on
this?
--arjuna
-- Adam
>
>
>
> On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > underlying storage is HashMap.
> >
> > I just found the following in commons:
> >
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> >
> > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> >
> > --arjuna
> >
> >
> > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I'd like to make
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > a public utility class.
> > > >
> > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from
> value to
> > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > >
> > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > implemented
> > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > ??????
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > V value;
> > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > or
> > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > ???
> > > >
> > > > or should we have both?
> > > >
> > > > --arjuna
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
Yep, we saw the Jakarta Collections project. I'm happy to
use their code, but highly apprehensive about making
any of our public APIs directly expose their APIs; there
is a history of API changes there.
-- Adam
On 11/9/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/9/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What I was suggesting is that we have a BidiMap interface,
> > and a BidiHashMap implementation of that interface. So if
> > you're going to have a getInvertedMap() function, it should
> > return a BidiMap.
>
>
> On the topic of general purpose "bidi" maps, it might be worth comparing
> notes with the Jakarta Collections project, which IIRC has a similar class.
> It might be possible to use such an existing implementation and/or
> collaborate on a feature set that meets everyone's needs within the context
> of that project.
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 11/9/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I thought you would prefer BidiHashMap because
> > > the internal implementation is two HashMaps.
> > >
> > > When I proposed ReverseMap, you suggested ReverseHashMap,
> > > so now that I like BidiMap, I proposed BidiHashMap because
> > > I thought you would prefer that :)
> > >
> > > what say you?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/8/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Shouldn't it be BidiMap? Not BidiHashMap?
> > > >
> > > > -- Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-282
> > > > > --arjuna
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Also, can I call this method getInvertedMap?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Map<V,K> BidiHashMap<K,V>.getInvertedMap()
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make
> > ValueMap
> > > > > > > public.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
> > > > > > > commons-collections has a BidiMap)
> > > > > > > can I call this
> > > > > > > BidiHashMap
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > While I've no problem with using commons-collections
> > internally,
> > > > > > > > > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > > > > > > > > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > > > > > > > > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > > > > > > > > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in
> > the
> > > > > > > > > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > > > > > > > > the return type of any public API.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We might consider introducing:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > Object getKey(Object value)
> > > > > > > > > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > > > > > > > > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > > > > > > > > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > > > > > > > > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > > > > > > > > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > > > > > > > > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > > > > > > > > dependency.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > > > > > > > > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > > > > > > > > one feature.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the
> > current ValueMap?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying
> > storage?
> > > > > > > > > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something
> > like
> > > > > > > > > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > > > > > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and
> > also from value to
> > > > > > > > > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > > > > > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface
> > is fully
> > > > > > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > > > > > > > > ??????
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis
> > is better?
> > > > > > > > > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > > > > > > > > V value;
> > > > > > > > > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap();
> > // option 2
> > > > > > > > > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > > > > > > > > ???
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 11/9/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What I was suggesting is that we have a BidiMap interface,
> and a BidiHashMap implementation of that interface. So if
> you're going to have a getInvertedMap() function, it should
> return a BidiMap.
On the topic of general purpose "bidi" maps, it might be worth comparing
notes with the Jakarta Collections project, which IIRC has a similar class.
It might be possible to use such an existing implementation and/or
collaborate on a feature set that meets everyone's needs within the context
of that project.
-- Adam
Craig
On 11/9/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I thought you would prefer BidiHashMap because
> > the internal implementation is two HashMaps.
> >
> > When I proposed ReverseMap, you suggested ReverseHashMap,
> > so now that I like BidiMap, I proposed BidiHashMap because
> > I thought you would prefer that :)
> >
> > what say you?
> >
> >
> > On 11/8/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Shouldn't it be BidiMap? Not BidiHashMap?
> > >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-282
> > > > --arjuna
> > > >
> > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Also, can I call this method getInvertedMap?
> > > > >
> > > > > Map<V,K> BidiHashMap<K,V>.getInvertedMap()
> > > > >
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make
> ValueMap
> > > > > > public.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
> > > > > > commons-collections has a BidiMap)
> > > > > > can I call this
> > > > > > BidiHashMap
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > While I've no problem with using commons-collections
> internally,
> > > > > > > > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > > > > > > > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > > > > > > > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > > > > > > > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in
> the
> > > > > > > > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > > > > > > > the return type of any public API.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We might consider introducing:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > Object getKey(Object value)
> > > > > > > > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > > > > > > > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > > > > > > > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > > > > > > > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > > > > > > > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > > > > > > > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > > > > > > > dependency.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > > > > > > > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > > > > > > > one feature.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > > > > > > >
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the
> current ValueMap?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying
> storage?
> > > > > > > > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something
> like
> > > > > > > > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > > > > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and
> also from value to
> > > > > > > > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > > > > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface
> is fully
> > > > > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > > > > > > > ??????
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis
> is better?
> > > > > > > > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > > > > > > > V value;
> > > > > > > > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap();
> // option 2
> > > > > > > > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > > > > > > > ???
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Re: Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
What I was suggesting is that we have a BidiMap interface,
and a BidiHashMap implementation of that interface. So if
you're going to have a getInvertedMap() function, it should
return a BidiMap.
-- Adam
On 11/9/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought you would prefer BidiHashMap because
> the internal implementation is two HashMaps.
>
> When I proposed ReverseMap, you suggested ReverseHashMap,
> so now that I like BidiMap, I proposed BidiHashMap because
> I thought you would prefer that :)
>
> what say you?
>
>
> On 11/8/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Shouldn't it be BidiMap? Not BidiHashMap?
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-282
> > > --arjuna
> > >
> > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Also, can I call this method getInvertedMap?
> > > >
> > > > Map<V,K> BidiHashMap<K,V>.getInvertedMap()
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make ValueMap
> > > > > public.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,
> > > > >
> > > > > but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
> > > > > commons-collections has a BidiMap)
> > > > > can I call this
> > > > > BidiHashMap
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> > > > > > > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > > > > > > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > > > > > > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > > > > > > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> > > > > > > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > > > > > > the return type of any public API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We might consider introducing:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > Object getKey(Object value)
> > > > > > > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > > > > > > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > > > > > > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > > > > > > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > > > > > > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > > > > > > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > > > > > > dependency.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > > > > > > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > > > > > > one feature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > > > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > > > > > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > > > > > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > > > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > > > > > > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > > > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > > > > > > ??????
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > > > > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > > > > > > V value;
> > > > > > > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > > > > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > > > > > > ???
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
I thought you would prefer BidiHashMap because
the internal implementation is two HashMaps.
When I proposed ReverseMap, you suggested ReverseHashMap,
so now that I like BidiMap, I proposed BidiHashMap because
I thought you would prefer that :)
what say you?
On 11/8/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't it be BidiMap? Not BidiHashMap?
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-282
> > --arjuna
> >
> > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Also, can I call this method getInvertedMap?
> > >
> > > Map<V,K> BidiHashMap<K,V>.getInvertedMap()
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> > > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make ValueMap
> > > > public.
> > > >
> > > > I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,
> > > >
> > > > but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
> > > > commons-collections has a BidiMap)
> > > > can I call this
> > > > BidiHashMap
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> > > > > > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > > > > > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > > > > > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > > > > > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> > > > > > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > > > > > the return type of any public API.
> > > > >
> > > > > good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > We might consider introducing:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > Object getKey(Object value)
> > > > > > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > > > > > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > > > > > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > > > > > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > > > > > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > > > > > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > > > > > dependency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > > > > > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > > > > > one feature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > > > > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > > > > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > > > > > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > > > > > ??????
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > > > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > > > > > V value;
> > > > > > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > > > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > > > > > ???
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > > >
> > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
Shouldn't it be BidiMap? Not BidiHashMap?
-- Adam
On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-282
> --arjuna
>
> On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, can I call this method getInvertedMap?
> >
> > Map<V,K> BidiHashMap<K,V>.getInvertedMap()
> >
> > ?
> >
> > On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make ValueMap
> > > public.
> > >
> > > I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,
> > >
> > > but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
> > > commons-collections has a BidiMap)
> > > can I call this
> > > BidiHashMap
> > > ?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> > > > > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > > > > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > > > > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > > > > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> > > > > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > > > > the return type of any public API.
> > > >
> > > > good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
> > > >
> > > > > We might consider introducing:
> > > > >
> > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > > > > {
> > > > > Object getKey(Object value)
> > > > > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > > > > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > > > > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > > > > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > > > > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > > > > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > > > > dependency.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > > > > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > > > > one feature.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Adam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > > > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > > > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > > > > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > > > > ??????
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > > > > V value;
> > > > > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > > > > ???
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > >
> > > > further stuff:
> > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-282
--arjuna
On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, can I call this method getInvertedMap?
>
> Map<V,K> BidiHashMap<K,V>.getInvertedMap()
>
> ?
>
> On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make ValueMap
> > public.
> >
> > I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,
> >
> > but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
> > commons-collections has a BidiMap)
> > can I call this
> > BidiHashMap
> > ?
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> > > > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > > > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > > > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > > > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> > > > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > > > the return type of any public API.
> > >
> > > good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
> > >
> > > > We might consider introducing:
> > > >
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > > > {
> > > > Object getKey(Object value)
> > > > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > > > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > > > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > > > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > > > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > > > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > > > dependency.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > > > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > > > one feature.
> > > >
> > > > -- Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> > > > >
> > > > > --arjuna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > > > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > > > > implemented
> > > > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > > > ??????
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > > > V value;
> > > > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > > > ???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
>
Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
Also, can I call this method getInvertedMap?
Map<V,K> BidiHashMap<K,V>.getInvertedMap()
?
On 11/8/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make ValueMap
> public.
>
> I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,
>
> but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
> commons-collections has a BidiMap)
> can I call this
> BidiHashMap
> ?
>
>
> On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> > > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> > > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > > the return type of any public API.
> >
> > good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
> >
> > > We might consider introducing:
> > >
> > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > > {
> > > Object getKey(Object value)
> > > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > > }
> > >
> > > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > > dependency.
> > >
> > > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > > one feature.
> > >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > > >
> > > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> > > >
> > > > --arjuna
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Adam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > > > implemented
> > > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > > ??????
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > > V value;
> > > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > > ???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --arjuna
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
ok, since we can't use the commons-collections, let's make ValueMap
public.
I was going to call it ReverseHashMap,
but since BidiMap seems to be more popular (especially since
commons-collections has a BidiMap)
can I call this
BidiHashMap
?
On 10/27/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> > I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> > classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> > dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> > won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> > past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> > the return type of any public API.
>
> good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
>
> > We might consider introducing:
> >
> > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> > {
> > Object getKey(Object value)
> > BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> > Object removeValue(Object value)
> > }
> >
> > (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> > implementation detail use a subclass of
> > commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> > implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> > public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> > dependency.
> >
> > I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> > dependency on commons-collections for this
> > one feature.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > underlying storage is HashMap.
> > >
> > > I just found the following in commons:
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> > >
> > > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> > >
> > > --arjuna
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > > >
> > > > -- Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > I'd like to make
> > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > > a public utility class.
> > > > >
> > > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > > >
> > > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > > implemented
> > > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > > ??????
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > > V value;
> > > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > > or
> > > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > > ???
> > > > >
> > > > > or should we have both?
> > > > >
> > > > > --arjuna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On 10/27/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
> I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
> classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
> dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
> won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
> past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
> the return type of any public API.
good point. In MyFaces we had fun with them in the past too :)
> We might consider introducing:
>
> org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
> {
> Object getKey(Object value)
> BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
> Object removeValue(Object value)
> }
>
> (modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
> implementation detail use a subclass of
> commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
> implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
> public API dependency, but adds an implementation
> dependency.
>
> I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
> dependency on commons-collections for this
> one feature.
>
> -- Adam
>
>
>
> On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > underlying storage is HashMap.
> >
> > I just found the following in commons:
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
> >
> > I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
> >
> > --arjuna
> >
> >
> > On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> > >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I'd like to make
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > > a public utility class.
> > > >
> > > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > > > key. It is useful to create
> > > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to call it
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > > >
> > > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > > implemented
> > > > (along with the remove operations).
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > > ??????
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > > V value;
> > > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > > or
> > > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > > ???
> > > >
> > > > or should we have both?
> > > >
> > > > --arjuna
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
While I've no problem with using commons-collections internally,
I'm very reluctant to consider exposing commons-collections
classes directly in a public API, since it mandates that
dependency eternally - and assumes that Commons Collections
won't just decide to change their API (which they have in the
past). So, -1 to using any commons collections class as
the return type of any public API.
We might consider introducing:
org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.BidiMap
{
Object getKey(Object value)
BidiMap inverseBidiMap()
Object removeValue(Object value)
}
(modeled after their BidiMap), then as an internal
implementation detail use a subclass of
commons-collections' DualHashBidiMap that
implements our BidiMap. This eliminates the
public API dependency, but adds an implementation
dependency.
I don't know, though, if it's worth adding the
dependency on commons-collections for this
one feature.
-- Adam
On 10/27/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> underlying storage is HashMap.
>
> I just found the following in commons:
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
>
> I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
>
> --arjuna
>
>
> On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> > If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> > ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I'd like to make
> > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > > a public utility class.
> > >
> > > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > > key. It is useful to create
> > > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> > >
> > > I'd like to call it
> > > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> > >
> > > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> > implemented
> > > (along with the remove operations).
> > >
> > > What do you think about making this class public?
> > > ??????
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > > V value;
> > > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > > or
> > > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > > ???
> > >
> > > or should we have both?
> > >
> > > --arjuna
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
underlying storage is HashMap.
I just found the following in commons:
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/collections/apidocs/org/apache/commons/collections/bidimap/DualHashBidiMap.html
I wonder if we should use that directly and remove the current ValueMap?
--arjuna
On 10/25/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
> If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
> ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to make
> > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> > a public utility class.
> >
> > This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> > key. It is useful to create
> > ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
> >
> > I'd like to call it
> > org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
> >
> > And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully
> implemented
> > (along with the remove operations).
> >
> > What do you think about making this class public?
> > ??????
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> > ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> > V value;
> > K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> > or
> > Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> > K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> > ???
> >
> > or should we have both?
> >
> > --arjuna
> >
> >
>
Re: make ValueMap public
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
I guess both are useful; but what is the underlying storage?
If it's a HashMap, then this should be called something like
ReverseHashMap. (Or ReversibleHashMap?)
-- Adam
On 10/24/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to make
> org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.component.ValueMap
> a public utility class.
>
> This class maintains a mapping from key to value, and also from value to
> key. It is useful to create
> ClientRowKeyManager implementations (See
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-210).
>
> I'd like to call it
> org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.util.ReverseMap
>
> And I will cleanup the api so that the Map interface is fully implemented
> (along with the remove operations).
>
> What do you think about making this class public?
> ??????
>
>
>
>
> If we do make this public, which of the following apis is better?
> ReverseMap<K,V> map;
> V value;
> K key = map.getKey(value); // option 1
> or
> Map<V,K> valuemap = map.getReverseMap(); // option 2
> K Key = valuemap.get(value);
> ???
>
> or should we have both?
>
> --arjuna
>
>