+1 Marshall
Jörn Kottmann wrote: > Jörn Kottmann wrote: >> Marshall Schor wrote: >>> Jörn Kottmann wrote: >>> >>>> The additionalParams Map has a String key and can contains >>>> all kinds of Objects, so the correct generification would be >>>> Map<String, Object>. >>>> >>>> In the uima code base I found one invocation where a Properties object >>>> was >>>> passed as additionalParams. Properties is a Map<Object, Object> which >>>> will cause compile errors in user code when they use a Properties >>>> object to pass >>>> in the additional params. >>>> I don't think its common practice to use Properties for additional >>>> params. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> If we fix the one found use cited above, are there any other cases >>> where >>> instances of Properties are passed as additionalParams in our own code? >>> What do we think is the likelyhood that users will use Properties as >>> instances of additional params? >>> Our documentation says "See the Javadocs" for info on the additional >>> parameters. The Javadocs say this is a Map ... Valid parameter names >>> are defined as constants on the XYZ Interface ... and in that >>> interface, >>> these constants are Strings. >>> >>> But users might decide to represent these parameters in a properties >>> file. >>> >>> Here are some considerations (apologies if I get this wrong - please >>> correct): >>> - If we declare as <Object, Object>, then you cannot assign a >>> Map<String, Object> to the parameter. >>> - Having the key of the map be an Object is more general, and would >>> accommodate Properties. >>> - declaring as <String, Object> - cannot assign "new Properties()" to >>> it any more, unless you do the double-fisted cast >>> (Map<String,Object>)(Object) >>> >>> If that is the trade off, I think I would rather have it be <String, >>> Object>. >>> >> +1 from me for Map<String, Object> > If there are no objections I would like to start with the change > to get it done before our 28th deadline. > > Jörn >
