I see this was implemented. Do we have a policy/guideline for when a name is "bad enough" to merit renaming (and keeping a duplicate, deprecated member around for a year or more).
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Ben Chambers <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Exposing the CombineFn is necessary for use with composed combine or >> combining value state. There may be other reasons we made this visible, >> but >> these continue to justify it. > > > These are the CompareFns, not the CombineFns. > > It'd be nicer to use the Guava and/or Java8 natural ordering comparables, > but they don't promise serializable. > > I agree the naming is unfortunate, but I don't know that it's bad enough to > introduce a new name and have duplication and deprecation in the API. It > also goes deeper than this; Top.of(...) gives elements in *decreasing* order > while List.sort(...) gives elements in *increasing* order so using a > comparator in one will always produce the opposite effect of using a > comparator in the other. > >> >> On Sun, May 14, 2017, 1:00 PM Reuven Lax <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I believe the reason why this is called Top.largest, is that originally >> > it >> > was simply the comparator used by Top.largest - i.e. and implementation >> > detail. At some point it was made public and used by other transforms - >> > maybe making an implementation detail a public class was the real >> > mistake? >> > >> > On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Davor Bonaci <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > I agree this is an unfortunate name. >> > > >> > > Tangential: can we rename APIs now that the first stable release is >> > nearly >> > > done? >> > > Of course -- the "rename" can be done by introducing a new API, and >> > > deprecating, but not removing, the old one. Then, once we decide to >> > > move >> > to >> > > the next major release, the deprecated API can be removed. >> > > >> > > I think we should probably do the "rename" at some point, but I'd >> > > leave >> > the >> > > final call to the wider consensus. >> > > >> > > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Wesley Tanaka >> > > <[email protected] >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Using Top.Largest to sort a list of {2,1,3} produces {1,2,3}. This >> > > > matches the javadoc for the class, but seems counter-intuitive -- >> > > > one >> > > might >> > > > expect that a Comparator called Largest would give largest items >> > > > first. >> > > > I'm wondering if renaming the classes to Natural / Reversed would >> > better >> > > > match their behavior? >> > > > >> > > > --- >> > > > Wesley Tanaka >> > > > https://wtanaka.com/ >> > > >> > > >
