On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, David Graham wrote:
> > --- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Just out of curiosity, why are you leaving Hash out of the names? The > > > Java idiom seems to be to indicate a collection's implementation in > > the > > > name. Even the standard WeakHashMap maintains the "Hash" portion of > > the > > > name. I'm not particularly tied to CaseInsensitiveHashMap but I chose > > > that name based on current Java practices. > > > > Because people have assumed in the past that an XxxHashMap extends > > HashMap > > (normal Java naming practices). Its really just duplicate info anyway. > > java.util.WeakHashMap does not subclass java.util.HashMap but still > includes "Hash" in the name. They did that to indicate that it uses a > hashtable in its implementation not that it subclasses a particular class. > So, I still believe the current Java practice is to indicate the impl. in > the collection class name. That's a fine reason to maintain the name. Extending HashMap or implementing your own hashcode algorithm should earn you the name 'HashMap', but most Maps in [Collections] should not be HashMaps as that makes them implementation frozen. I should be able to do: new SoftRefMap( new CaseInsensitiveMap( new BeanMap( new HashMap() ) ) ); though I'm not sure exactly how the decorators are doing the decorating currently, ie) might not be in the constructor. CaseInsensitiveHashMap cannot fit into such a chained structure. [an opinion] Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
