From: Kief Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I would rather keep the iterator on TreeNode. If there are only two standard > >ways to iterate then two methods would seem appropriate. But are there more > >than two ways?? > > I favor a single iterator() method on the interface which returns the nodes in an > unspecified order. I'm ambivalent about having the specific breadth/depth iterator > methods on the Interface, but if it seems like there will be more than that, forget > it; keep just a single iterator() method and leave other options to implementations > rather than clutter the interface. > > There's nothing wrong with having a plain iterator() method even if there's no > default way it needs to be implemented; other Collection (non-List) classes > have iterators whose return order is unspecified.
Good argument. How about: "iterator() returns an iterator over the tree including this node and all of its children. For specificly ordered iterations, use the methods provided on TreeUtils." Thus we have an iterator() method on TreeNode and depthFirstIterator(TreeNode) and breadthFirstIterator(TreeNode) methods on TreeUtils. The other related question is whether to use TreeIterator, or just Iterator. TreeIterator really only provides a typecast nextNode() method. Is this enough to justify its existence? Stephen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
