On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Chris Hostetter<hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: > : The javadocs state clearly it must be Map<String,String>. Plus, the > : type checking is in fact enforced (you hit an exception if you violate > : it), dynamically (like Python). > : > : And then I was thinking with 1.5 (3.0 -- huh, neat how it's exactly > : 2X) we'd statically type it (change Map to Map<String,String>). > > the other option i've seen in similar situations is to document that > Map<Object,Object> is allowed, but that the Object will be toString()ed > and the resulting value is what will be used. > > In the common case of Strings, the functionality is the same without > requiring any explicit casting or instanceof error checking. > > the added bonuses are: > 1) people can pass other "simple" objects (Integers, Foats, Booleans) > and 99% of the time get what they want. > 2) people can pass wrapper objects that implement toString() in a non > trivial way and have the string produced for them lazily when the time > comes to use the String. (ie: if my string value is expensive to produce, > i can defer that cost until needed in case the commit fails for some other > reason before my string is even used)
But then when you retrieve your metadata it's converted to String -> String. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
