Maybe I just need to dig into this more deeply, but I find any form of Pair or Object[2] class being exposed as a public interface of commons-collections a bit questionable.
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, __matthewHawthorne wrote: > o.a.c.c.data could work. > > some other ideas: > o.a.c.c.types > o.a.c.c.elements > > Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > KeyValue is not directly associated with maps - its a free form key value > > pair. MultiKey could also be used in a List or Set. > > > > Stephen > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Rodney Waldhoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>Why can't these all just go with the maps? > >> > >>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > >> > >> > >>>The pairs package name is perhaps not quite right. I would like the > > > > package > > > >>>to hold all non-collection data structure: > >>> - MapEntry > >>> - KeyValue > >>> - MultiKey > >>> > >>>How about renaming the package to data? > >>>(no backwards compatability issues) > >>> > >>>Stephen > >>> > >>> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> > >> > >>-- > >>- Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/> > >> > >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- - Rod <http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
