I would only add the full signature version (with default). That way the method name can just be getDouble().
But that would provoke the question "if I want to retrieve a primitive without specifying a default, why should I have to mention a default (even 0) everytime??"
I would propose we inlclude both variants (with and sans default), and have a uniform naming for them. Even if we add only the default-taking method today, what if we decide tomorrow that the defaultless one can be useful.
And then, I think it is ok if we cannot preserve the same method names.
so, I propose the following:
public static double getIntValue(Map map, Object key) public static double getIntValue(Map map, Object key, int defaultValue)
etc for each prim (and String)
Waiting for feedback from others.
I can implement these methods after I am done with the subarray(prim[]) ones.
This is a very old class in [collections] and pre-dates me. I would probably
oppose adding these methods now.
But why??
Ash
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a very old class in [collections] and pre-dates me. I would probably
oppose adding these methods now. However, now that we have them, I would
support having the primitive methods as you propose. I would only add the
full signature version (with default). That way the method name can just be
getDouble().
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ash .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am curious to know why MapUtils does not have getters that return
> primitive types. Perhaps there was a discussion on whether it was needed
or
> not, you could point me to such discussion that took place in the past
when
> this class was conceived.
> In any case, I think that getters that return primitives could be very
> useful, much more than those that return wrapper objects. Thus, I think we
> could do with methods like:
>
> MapUtils.getDoubleValue(Map map, Object key [,defaultValue]);
>
> If the answer to my question is "you can do a MapUtils.getDouble(map,
> key).doubleValue() and so on",
> I would say, having a built-in method enhances the use of this class than
> having a programmer resort to such multiple method call. Of course, the
> internal implementation would do the same, but in the end, client code
would
> look far neater.
>
> Let me know,
> Ash
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
