Re: [collections] [patch] changes for ArrayListIterator was: Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-13 Thread Stephen Colebourne
Patch used to extend array iterators in general, thanks. Take a look - we now have: ArrayIterator ArrayListIterator ObjectArrayIterator ObjectArrayListIterator The first two support primitives, but with a performance penalty. The latter two don't, so run faster. Comments welcome. Stephen -

Re: [collections] [patch] changes for ArrayListIterator was: Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-11 Thread Neil O'Toole
Hi Stephen, Rich, > Would it be possible for you to refactor to remove > UnmodifiableArrayListIterator? Thanks ;-) No prob. Please find attached updated patches & files as per your suggestion. The comments for each file are as per the previous message except: - ArrayIterator.patch : changes as b

Re: [collections] [patch] changes for ArrayListIterator was: Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-11 Thread scolebourne
> from:Rich Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I have seen this sort of thing done before. For example, in the JODA Time > library, ReadableWritableInstant (mutable) extends ReadableInstant > (immutable). :-) Actually, the ReadableInstant interface is named and defined to allow a field to be re

Re: [collections] [patch] changes for ArrayListIterator was: Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-10 Thread Rich Dougherty
> Also, I am very uncomfortable with ArrayListIterator being a subclass of > UnmodifiableArrayListIterator. There is no 'is a' relationship here, and > worse, if I declared a method to take in an > UnmodifiableArrayListIterator it would accept a modifiable one which > would probably not be what I w

[collections] [patch] changes for ArrayListIterator was: Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-10 Thread Neil O'Toole
;-) > Stephen > > - Original Message - > From: "Neil O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:51 PM > Subject: Re: [collections] private member

[collections] [patch] changes for ArrayListIterator was: Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-09 Thread Neil O'Toole
;-) > Stephen > > - Original Message - > From: "Neil O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:51 PM > Subject: Re: [collections] private member

Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-06 Thread Stephen Colebourne
Go for it ;-) Stephen - Original Message - From: "Neil O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.

Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-06 Thread Neil O'Toole
I've prepared a patch for ArrayIterator, and the ArrayListIterator class is ready to go, with associated test cases. However, there is another issue with ArrayIterator. The ArrayIterator(Object array, int start, int end) constructor has the following test: if(end <= start) { t

Re: [collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-05 Thread Stephen Colebourne
Perhaps you would like to send a patch for ArrayIterator. http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html#Patches Also, an ArrayListIterator would be very welcome for the iterators package. If you are writing it, perhaps you would consider submitting it together with the associated patch to IteratorUti

[collections] private member access in o.a.c.collections.iterators

2002-12-05 Thread Neil O'Toole
Hi, I've been using the o.a.c.collections packages for a few months, and I want to applaud you guys for some fantastic work. I do have a question: forgive me if this has been discussed before (though I couldn't find it in the mail archive), but is there a particular reason why the member variabl