[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-10534?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
linenwei updated KAFKA-10534:
-----------------------------
Summary: Modify the AbstractConfig class, convert parameter `originals`
type from Map<?, ?> to Map<String, ?> to avoid redundant judgments in the code
(was: Modify the originals parameter type of the AbstractConfig class to avoid
redundant judgments in the code)
> Modify the AbstractConfig class, convert parameter `originals` type from
> Map<?, ?> to Map<String, ?> to avoid redundant judgments in the code
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: KAFKA-10534
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-10534
> Project: Kafka
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: clients
> Affects Versions: 2.6.0
> Reporter: linenwei
> Priority: Trivial
>
> Source Code:
> {code:java}
> @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
> public AbstractConfig(ConfigDef definition, Map<?, ?> originals,
> Map<String, ?> configProviderProps, boolean doLog){
> /* check that all the keys are really strings */
> for (Map.Entry<?, ?> entry : originals.entrySet())
> if (!(entry.getKey() instanceof String))
> throw new ConfigException(entry.getKey().toString(),
> entry.getValue(), "Key must be a string.");
> {code}
> In source code, I find that originals map key {color:#FF0000}must be a
> string{color}. From my point of view, why not use Map<String, ?> originals
> to replace Map<?, ?> originals? thus will not need to do a judgement for the
> key type.
> I'm not sure if I've thought about it, but if there are other reasons for
> doing this, I'd love to know why.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
