Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Thanks for the suggestions.
Since the Join class is heavily used all over Google's Java code, we don't want
to
rename it unless there's a convincing reason to do so. Your distaste of
"Join.join"
doesn't quality.
While builders can be helpful, such as our ImmutableMapBuilder, in this case the
existing syntax is more concise and equally clear.
Join.join(":", "a", "b", "c");
Original comment by jared.l....@gmail.com
on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:20
I agree with Jared.
A large number of overloads does usually indicate a fluent API might help, and
your
suggestions are quite good. But... in this case, this is such a basic low-level
utility that I tend to think it's better to keep it very straightforward. And
the
fact that we'd have to update all 2300 existing usages in internal Google code
really
makes this only worth doing if we were *really* sure.
And the name -- I concluded that there is no possible name for this class that I
won't hate; but we went with this and have lived with it for a while... it's
okay. I
guess we'll have a whole new dialogue about the name when we try to slam it into
java.util.
make sense, Robbie? Thanks for the report.
Original comment by kevin...@gmail.com
on 1 Oct 2007 at 7:43
Joining a Map begs for a fluent API in my book because now there are two
delimeters.
I would also like to see it handle a conceptual Map when I have two related
lists
such as keys and values.
Original comment by dvy...@gmail.com
on 26 Oct 2008 at 3:59
Actually, Join now has a method that takes a Map as input.
http://google-collections.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javadoc/com/google/common/bas
e/Join.html#join(java.lang.String,%20java.lang.String,%20java.util.Map)
Original comment by jared.l....@gmail.com
on 27 Oct 2008 at 5:10
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
robbie.v...@gmail.com
on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:09