I just wanted to provide some additional context. I think it goes
without question that we will get additional skepticism, but I would
like to be able to say that we have tried our best to acknowledge the
questions and concerns that have been raised thus far.
On Aug 29, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstood me... decision is made... time will tell
if you
will get a lot of scepticism or not, and whether that will be a
thorn in the
toe, stone on the shoe, hair in the eye, or not...
Cheers
Niclas
On Aug 29, 2009 8:17 PM, "Greg Brown" <[email protected]> wrote:
Here's why I described this as the "right" approach. The other day,
when we
were discussing this, it occurred to me that one way to address
Ralph's and
Noel's concerns might be to simply eliminate the Pivot-native
collection
classes (ArrayList, LinkedList, etc.) and move the adapter classes
(ListAdapter, MapAdapter, and SetAdapter) up to
org.apache.pivot.collections
proper. The adapter classes are clearly named, so this wouldn't seem
like an
"artificial" or "contrived" design, and they allow developers to
both take
advantage of Pivot's collection interfaces and continue using the
existing,
well-known JDK collection classes.
However, as Todd and I have reiterated, we think there are valid
reasons for
continuing to support Pivot's native collection implementations. It
seemed
to us that, if we leave the collections as they are, but simply draw
more
attention to the adapter classes, we might be able to address
everyone's
concerns. If you think that naming collisions, performance, or
anything else
related to the use of Pivot-native collections might be an issue,
you are
free to use the adapters. Otherwise, you can continue to use the
Pivot-native versions.
This way, we don't need to sacrifice one in favor of the other - both
options are available, and can be applied as appropriate based on an
individual developer's needs and tastes.
G
On Aug 29, 2009, at 2:51 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28,
2009 at
8:01 PM, Greg Brown...
