Stephen Colebourne typed the following on 10:27 PM 3/28/2002 +0000 >As part of the Joda project (www.joda.org) I have developed the following >collections that I would like to propose for inclusion in Apache commons >collection: > >1) TreeNode, ArrayTreeNode and TreeIterator >http://www.scolebourne.eurobell.co.uk/JodaTreeProposal.zip ... >I note that a Tree proposal from Kief Morris based on Map was submitted >recently - >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jakarta-commons-dev&m=101561962307536&w=2. I >would also be interested in any feedback as to how these two proposals might >relate. (The designs are pretty different)
I've had a look over TreeNode, I think they're not so different that they can't be tied together to share some of their interfaces and maybe some code. The essential difference is that my version stores objects using keys, like a map, while yours keeps them list-style. It makes sense to me to have both, since yours is more fundamental, and my key functionality is just an extension of the concept. We ought to make a common interface for both versions, which would look more like your TreeNode than my Tree, although I suggest we name it Tree. Then my interface would extend this interface, and be called MapTree or KeyedTree. Your implementation, ArrayTreeNode or maybe just ArrayTree, would be the basic implementation, and my implemention would subclass it. If this turns out to be impractical, we can make an abstract class with common code, which both versions would then subclass. This would also allow us to share common unit test code. One question I have about your implementation: is there a reason you didn't implement the java.util.Collection interface? It would make it more compatible with other collections code. Once the current commons-collections release is out maybe we can get this added so we can hash it out. Kief -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
